1983 John Armour

Armour Letter (as repaginated and laid out by the American TFP in 2011) To whom it may concern: Although the friends, sympathizers, members, and directors of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) have noticed that new calumnies, distorted reports and detractions have been spread against our organization during the last sixteen months, we have up until now limited ourselves to an attentive silence.

The John Armour Letter The principal instrument of this new and growing defamation campaign is a two-page letter dated December 1, 1982, signed by John T. Armour, that has been circulating in conservative and Catholic traditionalist circles. This document spreads all sorts of unfounded allegations and distortions, creating a false image of the American TFP in the public that does not know our movement.

Our Policy Our silence until now has been due principally to two considerations: The first we have observed zealously since the foundation of the movement in our country in the latter part of 1971 and the beginning of 1972. This principal of comportment is not to enter into quarrels and disputes with similar movements. This is because the TFP, since it was established to defend Christian Civilization against the nefarious action of communism and socialism in the civil sphere, and against progressivism in the religious sphere, considers it disloyal and counter-productive to attack those who, like us, oppose the advance of our common enemies. This is true above all nowadays when visible and invisible Communism advances in an overwhelming fashion all over the world.

The second reason that led us not to answer until the present is that not only the American TFP but also the other TFPs know by experience that —1—

these defamation campaigns have no other reason for existence than to make those who dedicate themselves to the combat against the enemies of Christian Civilization waste their precious time in continuous refutations.

At times those who appear as the immediate authors of the campaigns are no more than people who in their good faith are able to be manipulated by elements that are behind them. The latter know perfectly well that the absolute lack of substance in the accusations that they make will be proved as soon as the TFP defends itself. As a consequence, they know that their defamation campaigns will fail. What then would be the reason for such absurd campaigns? The only logical and reasonable explanation seems to be the desire to make the TFP waste its time.

For precisely this reason, the TFP has always been reluctant to respond to such campaigns, preferring to wait until they die out by themselves.

Nevertheless, since the present campaign set off by the letter of Mr. John Armour has after a very considerable time continued to grow instead of dying, the TFP finds itself required to respond in legitimate defense.

By Its Very Nature the TFP is Especially Targeted by Calumny An analysis of this defamation campaign should take into account the fact that the TFPs, considered as a whole, constitute one of the largest networks of anti-Communist organizations in the world. Since this is so, it is to be expected that campaigns would be unleashed whose objective would be to discredit and calumniate the TFP’s, especially in Catholic circles and traditionalist ambiences.

Why in Catholic and traditionalist circles? Because by the very nature of the TFP they are the circles where it most naturally tends to expand. In order to block off its possibilities of expansion it is necessary to attack it in these ambiences.

No one should be surprised that communism uses the resource of infiltration, and, after having infiltrated so cleverly and so overwhelmingly the Holy Catholic Church, that it has also managed to infiltrate traditionalist circles. Although fifth columns may be rare there, the useful innocents are common and they easily let themselves be misled by the well-planned tricks —2—

of evil. Unfortunately, naivete exists especially among the good. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our Supreme Model in all things, lamented that the sons of light were not as astute as the sons of the serpent.

Consequently, in analyzing reports that circulate about the TFP, it is necessary to consider that by its very nature the organization is especially targeted by calumny. If this were not so the authenticity of its antiCommunist character could be put in doubt.

This does not amount to saying that a person must consider all reports against the TFP are calumnies. But rather that, for the reasons expounded above, all of them should be analyzed with a very special care in order to find out whether it is really a question of a fault of the organization or a calumny intended to denigrate it.

The Detractors of the TFP Do Not Act in Accordance With the Teaching of the Gospel Now then, this caution is precisely what is lacking in those who are spreading the “John Armour Letter” and other stories derived from it.

Until now we are not aware that any of these detractors have had the care or uprightness to seek out any of the directors of the American TFP to check the veracity of the accusations contained in that letter. In the gospel of St. Matthew (18:15ff) Our Lord says, “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not here the church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”

Contrary to the procedure so clearly taught to us by the gospels and in spite of the flagrant absence of proofs, our detractors immediately took the accusations as being true and began to spread them, in spite of the fact that the only argument for credibility in the whole letter is the testimony of the author. Now, the old adage of Roman law says: “Testis unus, testis nullus” (One witness is no witness). Furthermore, the letter itself shows clearly that the spirit of its author was already very much worked up against the TFP and for this reason it is unworthy of credit.

—3—

Contradiction and Lack of Proof The emptiness and the absurdity of the allegations become even clearer when one notes that the author falls into flagrant contradictions. Consider for example the accusation that the TFP is a sect. The letter describes a series of acts of piety that are practiced and encouraged by the TFP. These acts are exactly what an organization highly dedicated to promoting Catholic piety among its members ought to do. But the author affirms, gratuitously, that all this life of Catholic piety does not have Our Lord and God as its end but rather the promotion of an illegitimate cult to the personality of Professor Plinio Corrê de Oliveira, the founder of the Brazilian TFP and the inspirer of the other TFPs. What a contradiction: a pious Catholic life, but one that idealizes the founder or inspirer of the organization! Where is the proof, or the rational demonstration, that the final purpose of the TFP is to promote such a cult? What proof is there that the TFP does not have as its objective the promotion of legitimate forms of devotion? There is none.

Quite to the contrary, logic demonstrates that this insistence of the TFP on the practice of the true Catholic religion as it is taught by the good catechisms of former days, ought to give any logical observer the certainty of its authenticity.

Not Even the Calumniators Have Ever Dared to Say Anything About the Life of Prof. Plinio The same is true about Professor Plinio Corrê de Oliveira. If his whole life has been a model of Catholic virtue, proven in all of his public and private attitudes, that are so abundantly witnessed, as well as his writings and his speeches, that are no less abundant, the logical conclusion that one has to come to is that he is worthy of admiration and praise and nothing else.

In this regard, even calumniators have never dared to say anything about his private life.

On the other hand, if all of his actions help to convert non-Catholics to the Catholic Church and to increase the fervor of Catholics in their love for the saints, the papacy, Our Lady, the Holy Church, and Our Lord Jesus Christ, if this is the proven result, it is totally absurd that the instrument of such a good could have no other objective than the cult of himself.

—4—

Otherwise his action could not bear the fruits that it does. Was this not the criteria of judgment that Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us: “Judge the tree by its fruits”?

A Conclusion Diametrically Opposed to That of the Detractors of the TFP The logic that was given to us by Our Divine Redeemer leads to a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the detractors of the TFP. For one who leads others to a greater love of God merits their gratitude and admiration. To confound this with a “personality cult” is to distort reality without giving any demonstration to justify it.

On the other hand, the personality of a founder is one of the principle credentials of an organization, above all when the organization is new and the founder already quite well known. It is thus natural for an organization to promote its founder for its own good.

Furthermore, it is known that every organization legitimately tends to make its founder or inspirer known, and seeks to have him esteemed and reverenced. Isn’t this what take place, for example, among the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre? The TFP is not an exception to this rule, and we do not see where it may have gone beyond other organizations in this matter.

Historical Examples That Throw Light on the So Called “Personality Cult” We shall select some examples from an immense collection that throw still more light on the matter. They are numbered for the ease of the reader.

1. According to the testimony of his biographers, St. John Bosco’s students had such an enthusiasm for him that they carried him about in triumph on a kind of “sede gestatoria,” with the permission of the saint. We must emphasize that these events took place during his life, and obviously before the Church had canonized him. Could someone allege that the enthusiasm of Don Bosco’s student s constituted “a dangerous personality cult” of him? One who knows the life of the Church is certain of this: Detractors of Don Bosco were not lacking on that occasion.

—5—

2. William Thomas Walsh in his book St. Theresa of Avila (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1943, 3rd printing, p. 557), gives us another example of devotion to living persons in the history of the Church. We cite the text: “In a house at Villa Robledo, where she stopped to eat, people broke through the windows and walls to get a glimpse of her [St Theresa], until the police arrested a few. In another town, she had to depart three hours before dawn to escape the crowd. She was asked to bless people, and in one case a herd of cattle. At the Discalced Monastery of Nuestra Senora del Socorro, all her friars came forth in procession to receive her, and after kneeling to ask her benediction, escorted her to the church, singing the Te Deum.”

Is this a “dangerous personality cult”?

3. We find a similar instance in the book Joan of Arc, Maid of France, a biography of the saint by Albert Bigelow Paine (MacMillan, New York, 1925, Vol. I). On page 110, the author tells: “At Poitiers, as elsewhere, her lodgings were sought by visitors of the highest rank; the narrow street in front was crowded with eager and devout men and women. Many wanted her to touch their rings, to bless their handkerchiefs, and all were moved by an unquestioning faith.”

4. In Biografia y Escrtios de San Vicente Ferrer (BAC, Madrid, 1956, pages 132-133) one finds: “In many cities and places they went out to receive him [St Vincent Ferrer] in procession, carrying pendants and banners, the clergy dressed in their sacred vestments with a cross and relics and other sacred things, just as if St Paul had come to preach to them. And because everyone wanted to touch him, kiss his hand, or tear off a piece of his clothing, it was often necessary to surround him with wooden frames to protect him…, but now that they could not reach him, and take things from his clothing, they came at least to touch the donkey that was bearing him.”

5. The same thing happened to St Anthony Mary Claret, the Archbishop of Santiago, Cuba, while he lived. According to the Vida de Santo Antonio Maria Claret (Ed. Ave Maria, Sao Paulo, pp. 24-25), by Geraldo Fernandez CMF, Bishop of Londrina [Brazil]: “There were so many people pressing around him that it was necessary to make a box of wood held by four men in order to protect the ‘padrezinho’ (little father) who risked being suffocated by the people because everyone wanted to be near him.”

—6—

6. In a biography of St. Catherine of Sienna, a laywomen and a third order Dominican, written by St. Francisco de Capua titled Vida de Santa Catalina de Siena, we read the following passage: “I have frequently seen thousands of men and women who ran after her from all over as if convoked by the sound of a mysterious trumpet; her words were often unnecessary, for her presence was enough to convert people and inspire them with profound sentiments of contrition… some would say of her: ‘why do they run from everywhere to meet her? She is no more than a woman. If she wants to serve God, she should stay in her cell.’” In this example also it becomes quite clear that there were those who, not accepting the sanctity of the great Catherine of Sienna, became irritated with her and committed detraction against her.

Many other examples could be cited, but they would go beyond the limits of this letter. Our intention is not to do a parallel between the sanctity of these saints and the virtuous life of Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, but to show, through historical examples, that such manifestations of enthusiasm have laudable precedents in the life of the Church. To deny this is to ignore the circumstances which surround the lives of the saints.

An Analysis of the Principal Allegations Contained in the Letter With these observations as a background we shall now enter into the analysis of the allegations contained in the letter. We do not expect the reading of this refutation to be agreeable. In order for it to be entirely efficacious we had to scrutinize the letter’s principal statements, ambiguities, and distortions in order not to leave a shadow of a doubt about the matter.

To simplify we shall cite each one of the allegations of the John Armour letter and immediately afterwards give our refutation. We shall follow not the order of importance, but the order of the author’s exposition.

Paragraph 1- “I was a member…”

Answer—John Armour was never a member of the TFP, but only an aspirant.

Paragraph 2- “Looking back I can now see that the TFP is a dangerous personality cult…”

—7—

letter.

Answer- This matter was fully treated in the introduction of this

“…The appeals to moral, dogmatic, and liturgical tradition which are so refreshing in this age of turmoil are, in my opinion, simply a means to lure individuals into the cult.”

Answer— In this as in other points of the latter the author admits that the TFP evokes Catholic tradition in matters of morals, dogma, and liturgy so much that it is refreshing to the soul. But immediately afterwards, without any demonstration, he affirms that all of this is a falsification that aims to attract individuals to a cult.

This is like someone saying that a coin that appears to be gold, shines like gold, and has all the physical characteristics of gold, is not in his opinion made of gold. But if the coin has all the appearances and characteristics of the noble metal, on what basis can he have the opinion that it is not gold? In order to do this one would have to make a demonstration, a very difficult one in this case, that the coin is false. The same is true of the TFP. Its members profess the Catholic Faith, strictly observe Catholic morality, practice exclusively traditional Catholic devotions, and always base their works on the doctrine of the Popes and traditional theologians.

And then the author of the letter gratuitously opines that we are not Catholics. This attitude could not be more illogical, nor could the author of the letter defend a thesis more difficult to demonstrate.

Paragraph 3- “During the period of training, which I received, I was taught: Dr. Plinio will never die. When his mission of earth is fulfilled, he will walk into an earthly paradise and then ascend into heaven.”

Answer—This affirmation was never taught in the TFP. On the contrary Dr. Plinio frequently tells us that due to his advanced age he finds himself by the law of probabilities closer to death than the immense majority of the volunteers of the TFP who are much younger.

Furthermore for many years he has had his last will and testament completely written up and registered with a notary public which proves that he, as is normal, takes the hypothesis of his death into consideration.

“Dr. Plinio’s mission is to defeat ‘the revolution,’ …He is the ‘pilgrim of justice’ sent by God for this purpose.”

—8—

Answer—Granted that a Gnostic, egalitarian, and satanic Revolution exists- in accordance with the analysis contained in the book Revolution and Counter-Revolution- whose objective is to destroy the temporal and spiritual order, that is, Christendom and the Holy Catholic Church, every Catholic, to the degree of his possibilities and according to his circumstances, has the obligation to work to destroy the Revolution. Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira has dedicated his life to this and founded a movement specifically to achieve this purpose, one that is supported on the certainty of the indefectibility of the Holy Church and the promises of Fatima.

Therefore until the Revolution is swept off the face of the earth, every Catholic must be, in the figurative sense, a pilgrim of justice: He cannot rest as long as the Revolution reigns over the earth. Justice is the virtue by which one gives to each one what is due to him. But there can be no justice until all the rights of God, usurped by the Revolution, are restored. It is in this sense that Professor Plinio says that he is- without however excluding anyone- a pilgrim of justice. As for his being sent by God, even if he had affirmed such a thing, what would be heterodox about that? According to Henri Gheon in his biography of St. Vincent Ferrer (Sheed & Ward; New York, 1939, p. 66), the saint called himself the “Angel of Judgment” from the Apocalypse.

“Next to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dr. Plinio is most loved by God. Hence, St. Michael is his own personal guardian angel.”

Answer—Once more the affirmation lacks any foundation and was never made in the TFP. If he heard this from someone in the organization, it can only have been made in a merely speculative and personal way, because the affirmation has no foundation in the teaching of the TFP. The thinking of the TFP is, and always was, the fruit of a logical and methodical analysis of the facts and events of the socio-political and economic order as well as the historical order under the light of the Catholic Faith.

This can be deduced from all the books, magazines, position papers, and other works published by the American TFP, the Brazilian TFP, and all the others. This thinking is not, and never was, the fruit of any supernatural revelation to anyone in the TFP. We know of no one in the TFP who has ever had any revelation of this sort. Now then, since the system of analysis of the TFP does not give any basis for someone to arrive at the conclusions of the author of this letter, if anything like this was said, it is no more than mere private speculation for which the organization cannot be held responsible. It is understandable that, in the fervor of youth, enthusiasm —9—

leads to speculations which may exceed the limits of what can be proven historically.

“Dr. Plinio has the power to read a man’s soul in order to determine if he possesses ‘tau,’ the vocation and quality to fight the revolution. He is even supposed to be able to make this determination from viewing a photograph. ‘Tau’ can be found only in males.”

Answer—It is commonly known that Dr. Plinio often penetrates the mentality and the psychology of a person on conversing with him; more rarely on seeing someone walking in the street or simply by looking at a photograph of a person.

It should be pointed out that this does not mean that he knows everyone in this way nor does he interpret every photograph he sees. He many times returns a photograph saying that he is incapable of analyzing it for various reasons: the person is using dark sunglasses which don’t permit him to see his eyes, the photograph is very light or very dark, or simply the personality of the person in the photograph, which might possibly be decipherable for another, is indecipherable for him.

This is an aptitude of Dr. Plinio’s. Surprising? No. This aptitude appears many times with greater or lesser intensity in sagacious politicians, refined diplomats, perspicacious policemen, experienced confessors, competent psychiatrists, or highly experienced professors.

Discernment of spirits is a favor which the Holy Ghost can and does grant with a certain frequency to some people, and this has occurred in all epochs of the Church’s history. What is heterodox about imagining that Dr. Plinio has this discernment of spirits which furthermore, by no means presupposes sanctity?

In Memoirs of the Oratory, St. John Bosco says of himself: “I began to study the character of my companions when I was yet very young. On observing the face of one of them, I usually discovered the intention of his heart” (cf. Biograifa y Escritos de San Juan Bosco, BAC, Madrid, 1955, p.

88).

The author of the letter comments that only men are supposed to have the vocation of facing the Revolution. As we have demonstrated previously, all Catholics without exception, therefore men and women, have the obligation of fighting against the Revolution in accordance with their own capacity, circumstance, and state in life.

In fact the American TFP has among its supporters many ladies who render it excellent and invaluable services.

— 10 —

“The members of the TFP are required to pledge their allegiance to Dr. Plinio. They make a consecration of slavery to the Blessed Mother and to Dr. Plinio. So highly regarded is Dr. Plinio that we were encouraged to kiss one of his hats that had come into our possession.

And we kept a special room set aside for him where we had a special bed raised on a platform above the floor.”

Answer—It is entirely untrue that the members are required to pledge allegiance to Dr. Plinio. As to the consecration of slavery it is quite true that the majority of the volunteers of the TFP make the consecration as slaves of Our Lady in accordance with the method taught by St. Louis Grinion de Montfort in his famous Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This method is not only approved by the Church but also encouraged by the various popes, including the illustrious St. Pius X. But even this consecration is not required in the TFP only encouraged. On making the absurd allegation of slavery to Dr. Plinio, the “imaginative” author of the letter, once again tries to insinuate that the TFP is a sect where one is a slave of the “guru.” We have already dealt with this point very extensively considering the limits of the letter.

Regarding the kissing of Dr. Plinio’s hat, the author once again shows his lack of knowledge of Catholic history. For if anyone in the TFP believes that Dr. Plinio has the virtues which characterize living saints, his conduct in kissing something of his conforms to the practice of fervent Catholics since the very beginnings of Christianity. One example among a thousand: During the life of St. Vincent Ferrer it is told that the faithful, in their fervor, went so far as to pull the hairs out of his horse to keep as relics and that the saint encouraged them to do so. Very many other examples could be given.

What the author of the letter could ask is whether or not Dr. Plinio is a saint.

But this would be another question that we doubt that the detractors of the TFP would like to raise. For example they could write an impartial article with the title: “Saint or Guru?” But this they would never do.

Regarding the bedroom, in fact there is an apartment decorated in an austere but dignified very way, which is reserved for him. There is nothing special about the bed. It was bought in a local furniture store from among the beds that were for sale there.

Paragraph 9- “…A man was assigned to watch over me, answer my questions and keep me from knowing to much until they were sure of me. He even told me what to write in my letters to my parents.”

Answer—The manner in which he writes this part of the text insinuates that the comportment of the TFP is like that of a sect, but this is — 11 —

entirely false. Once again we have a sensationalist distortion which could impress the unwary reader.

What in fact happens is very common in any organization which has a depth of thought. A person who approaches the TFP does not begin immediately to study by himself, nor to listen to lectures whose content is too difficult for him to understand. It is necessary for someone- mot necessarily the same person, or only one person- to help the newcomer or newcomers to gradually progress in the understanding of their studies.

The person who invites a newcomer to come to know the TFP is ordinarily the same one who accompanies him in his work and in catching up on his studies. But the contacts of the newcomer are not limited to that interlocutor. Once the person is admitted and allowed to frequent the courses of the TFP, and therefore its centers, all the doors are open to him and he can talk to anyone he wishes. He can immediately ask all the questions he wants of whomever he wants to ask them.

As for him being told what he ought to write to his parents, it was John Armour himself who asked help in explaining to them why he wanted to enter the TFP, a desire that his parents did not understand. Advising someone what to write to his parents or to anyone else is by no means an imposition of the TFP. On the other hand it is part of the normal and most commonplace social comportment for persons that have a very great confidence in each other and embrace the same ideal to consult each other for innumerable purposes.

Paragraph 10- “Those of us whose parents did not agree with the TFP soon found ourselves referring to our mothers and fathers as the ‘fountain of my revolution’ (FMR). The inference was that each of us had a trace of the revolution in him and it had been obtained as a result of the corruption and leniency of our parents. We were convinced to reject and ignore any advice from them, to see corruption in all our family members, and to treat them accordingly.”

Answer—First of all, there in no one in the American TFP under 18 years of age except those whose parents have given authorization for them to be there.

Furthermore, the immense majority of the parents, whether they have sons in the TFP who are under 18 or more than 18 years of age, support the organization so much that they have become “Supporters” (a title which is given to great friends of the TFP, or even members who participate in many of its activities). For example last October a large delegation of them went to the Congress of the Brazilian TFP in Sao Paolo, Brazil, especially in order — 12 —

to visit Dr. Plinio. Another case is that of the parents, who can be counted on the fingers of one hand, who do not agree with the TFP but have sons already of age in the organization and who try to undo the good influence of the TFP over their children. In this case the sons have a right to defend themselves, since they are adults and have a right to make their own decisions in life. It is true that the TFP helps them to maintain their position.

Once again without wanting to make any comparisons, but out of necessity of legitimate self-defense which we would have preferred not to have been obliged to make, we ask: Did the innumerable religious orders of the Church not do the same? And did not the Orders of Chivalry of Christendom not do the same in defense of their members whose parents unreasonably wished to prevent them from following the vocation of their choice?

Is it not obvious that, at the time of the early Church in the catacombs the first Catholics had to warn youths not to allow themselves to be influenced by the pagan spirit of their parents? Why should the same counsel not be given today about those parents who are neo-pagans?

As for calling families FMR (fountain for my revolution), in the case of the families that we have just mentioned it is legitimate for the sons to consider them the most sensitive point of revolutionary influence over themselves. Nonetheless, Dr. Plinio himself does not like the use of the expression FMR because it seems to him that it is susceptible of malevolent interpretations.

A Last Allegation About John Paul II Since this letter of refutation is becoming extremely long, and since what has already been said here is sufficient to disintoxicate the spirit of those who may inadvertently have been influenced by the letter of John Armour, we shall limit ourselves to analyzing just one more allegation among the rest that merits a word. The others are allegations that have already been either directly or indirectly refuted by this letter, or are so gratuitous, or are of such a secondary importance in relation to those that have already been answered that we shall pass over them.

Here we are speaking of the allegation that the members of the TFP do not believe that John Paul II is the true Pope.

Answer—In principle, the very grave problem of the legitimacy of a pope can only be licitly raised when there are grave arguments for this — 13 —

supported by first-rate theologians. Even at that, it is difficult for laymen who have not studied such serious arguments very deeply to form on this matter an opinion that is not rash. In none of the fifteen TFPs is there anyone in this condition.

Only specialists who are very well formed and have thorough documentation are free to make such a peremptory allegation.

A Question in the Back of People’s Minds One last question may still be in the back of many a reader’s mind: Why is it that the TFP does not sue its detractors? The answer is linked to the two reasons that were cited at the beginning of this document. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine how the leftists, the enemies of our movement and all their ilk, would benefit from a court battle between movements like ours. This we shall not do unless the defamations threaten our cause to a degree that they have not yet reached.

— END —

— 14 —