Catholic Church in Spain fights Franco-era image

[JW10631]

In times past, Spain was the source of many of the priests who worked in Latin America. Latin America also has a shortage of vocations, in some places it is worse than others. Thus, Spain’s falling away from the faith has an impact that reaches far beyond its borders.

Pope Benedict has warned that the Church will grow smaller. His observations are correct. While nothing is impossible with God, I believe that many who have fallen away are firmly in the clutches of “nothingness”. To them, the pursuit of material wealth and possessions and entertainment is primary and religion is a waste of time.

The present government of Spain amazes me. Spain is depopulating itself. Its birth rate is not at replacement level. Homosexual marriage is the law and abortion is readily available. Rather than fight back after the Madrid terror attack, Spain quickly withdrew. Would those who fought against the Muslim invaders and drove them out centuries ago have quit after a single Muslim attack? NO! Spain’s unemployment is somewhere around 20% and if it were not for tourism, it would be far worse.

Rampant anti-religious secularism leads to the death of a society and it appears the majority of Spaniards have embraced this path. Zapatero is a fool and so are the people who have supported the Socialists, but it is their choice, just as the majority of voters selected the dufus in the White House.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

In times past, Spain was the source of many of the priests who worked in Latin America. Latin America also has a shortage of vocations, in some places it is worse than others. Thus, Spain’s falling away from the faith has an impact that reaches far beyond its borders.

Pope Benedict has warned that the Church will grow smaller. His observations are correct. While nothing is impossible with God, I believe that many who have fallen away are firmly in the clutches of “nothingness”. To them, the pursuit of material wealth and possessions and entertainment is primary and religion is a waste of time.

The present government of Spain amazes me. Spain is depopulating itself. Its birth rate is not at replacement level. Homosexual marriage is the law and abortion is readily available. Rather than fight back after the Madrid terror attack, Spain quickly withdrew. Would those who fought against the Muslim invaders and drove them out centuries ago have quit after a single Muslim attack? NO! Spain’s unemployment is somewhere around 20% and if it were not for tourism, it would be far worse.

Rampant anti-religious secularism leads to the death of a society and it appears the majority of Spaniards have embraced this path. Zapatero is a fool and so are the people who have supported the Socialists, but it is their choice, just as the majority of voters selected the dufus in the White House.

A reasonable analysis of the situation until you got to that last sentence and added that gratuitous and inappropriate insult.

 

[estesbob]

A reasonable analysis of the situation until you got to that last sentence and added that gratuitous and inappropriate insult.

It is probable that Obamas recission of the Mexico City Policy has already accounted for more deaths than Franco was responsible for in his entire reign.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It is probable that Obamas recission of the Mexico City Policy has already accounted for more deaths than Franco was responsible for in his entire reign.

I hope you’re not saying this in Franco’s defense or that of any other murderous dictator to mitigate what they have done!!

 

[estesbob]

I hope you’re not saying this in Franco’s defense or that of any other murderous dictator to mitigate what they have done!!

Just pointing out that many of those Catholics who are so quick to condemn Franco support a leader who is as bad or worse.

 

[Adeodatus]

I hope you’re not saying this in Franco’s defense or that of any other murderous dictator to mitigate what they have done!!

Franco was not a murderer. His regime put people to death. There’s a difference. Unless you do not admit that the death penalty has a possibly just application, in which case you contradict the Holy Scripture.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Franco was not a murderer. His regime put people to death. There’s a difference. Unless you do not admit that the death penalty has a possibly just application, in which case you contradict the Holy Scripture.

Laughable.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Just pointing out that many of those Catholics who are so quick to condemn Franco support a leader who is as bad or worse.

Even if the Catholics of some country with a dictator whose hands are bloodier than Franco support that dictator, it still doesn’t mitigate Franco’s crimes.

 

[estesbob]

Even if the Catholics of some country with a dictator whose hands are bloodier than Franco support that dictator, it still doesn’t mitigate Franco’s crimes.

But does make one wonder about the selective outrage of those Catholics who support a greater evil today

 

[Miel]

I found this article on the Catholic Church in Spain and Franco. It seems the Church has already changed and Franco is gone

Church and state have been closely linked in Spain for centuries. With the reinstitution of the Inquisition in Spain in the fifteenth century, the state employed draconian measures to enforce religious unity in an effort to ensure political unity. Strong measures to separate church and state were enacted under the short-lived Second Republic, but they were nullified by the victorious Nationalists. In the early years of the Franco regime, church and state had a close and mutually beneficial association. The loyalty of the Roman Catholic Church to the Francoist state lent legitimacy to the dictatorship, which in turn restored and enhanced the church’s traditional privileges (see The Franco Years , ch. 1).

After the Second Vatican Council in 1965 set forth the church’s stand on human rights, the church in Spain moved from a position of unswerving support for Franco’s rule to one of guarded criticism. During the final years of the dictatorship, the church withdrew its support from the regime and became one of its harshest critics. This evolution in the church’s position divided Spanish Catholics. Within the institution, right-wing sentiment, opposed to any form of democratic change, was typified by the Brotherhood of Spanish Priests, the members of which published vitriolic attacks on church reformers. Opposition took a more violent form in such groups as the rightist Catholic terrorist organization known as the Warriors of Christ the King, which assaulted progressive priests and their churches.

Whereas this reactionary faction was vociferous in its resistance to any change within the church, other Spanish Catholics were frustrated at the slow pace of reform in the church and in society, and they became involved in various leftist organizations. In between these extreme positions, a small, but influential, group of Catholics–who had been involved in lay Catholic organizations such as Catholic Action–favored liberalization in both the church and the regime, but they did not enter the opposition forces. They formed a study group called Tacito, which urged a gradual transition to a democratic monarchy. The group’s members published articles advocating a Christian democratic Spain.

The church continued to be in opposition to the Franco regime throughout the dictatorship’s final years. The Joint Assembly of Bishops and Priests held in 1971 marked a significant phase in the distancing of the church from the Spanish state. This group affirmed the progressive spirit of the Second Vatican Council and adopted a resolution asking the pardon of the Spanish people for the hierarchy’s partisanship in the Civil War.

At the Episcopal Conference convened in 1973, the bishops demanded the separation of church and state, and they called for a revision of the 1953 Concordat. Subsequent negotiations for such a revision broke down because Franco refused to relinquish the power to veto Vatican appointments. Until his death, Franco never understood the opposition of the church. No other Spanish ruler had enacted measures so favorable to the church as Franco, and he complained bitterly about what he considered to be its ingratitude.

Because the church had already begun its transformation into a modern institution a decade before the advent of democracy to Spain, it was able to assume an influential role during the transition period that followed Franco’s death. Furthermore, although disagreements over church-state relations and over political issues of particular interest to the Roman Catholic Church remained, these questions could be dealt with in a less adversarial manner under the more liberal atmosphere of the constitutional monarchy.

A revision of the Concordat was approved in July 1976 by the newly formed Suarez government. Negotiations soon followed that resulted in bilateral agreements, delineating the relationship between the Vatican and the new democratic state (see Religion , ch. 2). The 1978 Constitution confirms the separation of church and state while recognizing the role of the Roman Catholic faith in Spanish society (see The 1978 Constitution , this ch.).

Within this basic framework for the new relationship between the church and the government, divisive issues remained to be resolved in the late 1980s. The church traditionally had exercised considerable influence in the area of education, and it joined conservative opposition parties in mounting a vigorous protest against the education reforms that impinged on its control of the schools (see Political Developments, 1982-88 , this ch.). Even more acrimonious debate ensued over the emotionally charged issues of divorce and abortion. The church mobilized its considerable influence in support of a powerful lobbying effort against proposed legislation that was contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine governing these subjects. The passage of a law in 1981 legalizing civil divorce struck a telling blow against the influence of the church in Spanish society. A law legalizing abortion under certain circumstances was passed in August 1985 and further liberalized in November 1986, over the fierce opposition of the chuch

 

[Miel]

he church continued to be in opposition to the Franco regime throughout the dictatorship’s final years. The Joint Assembly of Bishops and Priests held in 1971 marked a significant phase in the distancing of the church from the Spanish state. This group affirmed the progressive spirit of the Second Vatican Council and adopted a resolution asking the pardon of the Spanish people for the hierarchy’s partisanship in the Civil War.

At the Episcopal Conference convened in 1973, the bishops demanded the separation of church and state, and they called for a revision of the 1953 Concordat. Subsequent negotiations for such a revision broke down because Franco refused to relinquish the power to veto Vatican appointments. Until his death, Franco never understood the opposition of the church. No other Spanish ruler had enacted measures so favorable to the church as Franco, and he complained bitterly about what he considered to be its ingratitude.

Because the church had already begun its transformation into a modern institution a decade before the advent of democracy to Spain, it was able to assume an influential role during the transition period that followed Franco’s death. Furthermore, although disagreements over church-state relations and over political issues of particular interest to the Roman Catholic Church remained, these questions could be dealt with in a less adversarial manner under the more liberal atmosphere of the constitutional monarchy.

A revision of the Concordat was approved in July 1976 by the newly formed Suarez government. Negotiations soon followed that resulted in bilateral agreements, delineating the relationship between the Vatican and the new democratic state (see Religion , ch. 2). The 1978 Constitution confirms the separation of church and state while recognizing the role of the Roman Catholic faith in Spanish society (see The 1978 Constitution , this ch.).

Within this basic framework for the new relationship between the church and the government, divisive issues remained to be resolved in the late 1980s. The church traditionally had exercised considerable influence in the area of education, and it joined conservative opposition parties in mounting a vigorous protest against the education reforms that impinged on its control of the schools (see Political Developments, 1982-88 , this ch.). Even more acrimonious debate ensued over the emotionally charged issues of divorce and abortion. The church mobilized its considerable influence in support of a powerful lobbying effort against proposed legislation that was contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine governing these subjects. The passage of a law in 1981 legalizing civil divorce struck a telling blow against the influence of the church in Spanish society. A law legalizing abortion under certain circumstances was passed in August 1985 and further liberalized in November 1986, over the fierce opposition of the church.

Another manifestation of the redefined role of the church was contained in measures aimed at reducing, and ultimately eliminating, direct government subsidies to the church. As part of the agreements reached in 1979, the church concurred with plans for its financial independence, to be achieved during a rather lengthy transitional period. At the end of 1987, the government announced that, after a three-year trial period, the church would receive no further direct state aid but would be dependent on what citizens chose to provide, either through donations or by designating a portion of their income tax for the church. Although the church’s exempt status constituted an indirect subsidy, the effect of this new financial status on the church’s ability to wield political influence remained to be seen.

Although church-state relations involved potentially polarizing issues, the church played a basically cooperative and supportive role in the emergence of plural democracy in Spain. Although it no longer had a privileged position in society, its very independence from politics and its visibility made it an influential force.

Data as of December 1988

What the Church is battling are the many film clips of Franco and the Bishops and the rise of the Consumerism and Atheism. Spain is subject to the thinking of the French Revolution, which was anti religion and anti clerical whereas the US Revolution was more religious in nature learning from the mistakes of Europe. The roots of a healthy separation of church and state in Spain under a democratic state have been
clipped due to the Franco era, The entire Catholic Church in Spain has to be re evangelized and brought into a relationship under the Lordship of Jesus Christ

 

[AdvanceAlways]

“Thou Shall Not Kill.”

 

[inocente]

Rather than fight back after the Madrid terror attack, Spain quickly withdrew. Would those who fought against the Muslim invaders and drove them out centuries ago have quit after a single Muslim attack? NO!

It was a knee-jerk reaction that led Bush into Iraq, and look how well it turned out.

Many in Spain and other European counties (and I suspect Americans too) did not simplistically equate an outrage by a bunch of terrorists with the whole of Islam, and if they are all labeled socialists then the world could do with a lot more “socialists”.

Christ does not belong only to the right-wing, never has, never will.

 

[estesbob]

It was a knee-jerk reaction that led Bush into Iraq, and look how well it turned out.

Many in Spain and other European counties (and I suspect Americans too) did not simplistically equate an outrage by a bunch of terrorists with the whole of Islam, and if they are all labeled socialists then the world could do with a lot more “socialists”.

Christ does not belong only to the right-wing, never has, never will.

It turned out very well for the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq will go down as one of Americas finest moments. It is ok for the left in Europe to react in self-righteous anger against the US liberstion of Iraq-they know that the US will be there to bail them out, as always, if they are attacked.

Christ does not belong to the right-however there is no way one can reconcile modern liberalism with the teachings of his Church.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Christ does not belong to the right-however there is no way one can reconcile modern liberalism with the teachings of his Church.

You contradict yourself. If the left is not compatible with the teachings of the Church, then you are saying that the right wing owns Jesus.

 

[estesbob]

June 6,1944

 

[unafraid]

“It was the Soviets who really broke the Germans”, Come on, man. American lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union absolutely saved them from utter destruction at the hands of the German military juggernaut. The underpinnings of the Soviet counter-offensive owe themselves to this support. Therefore, you’re assertion that the American contribution to ultimate allied victory was not “essential” is a complete fallacy.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“It was the Soviets who really broke the Germans”, Come on, man. American lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union absolutely saved them from utter destruction at the hands of the German military juggernaut. The underpinnings of the Soviet counter-offensive owe themselves to this support. Therefore, you’re assertion that the American contribution to ultimate allied victory was not “essential” is a complete fallacy.

America’s finest contribution to the war was its manufacturing capacity, as “The Arsenal of Democracy” providing the equipment to the various armies, and even there it provided most of the equipment to its Western allies. The Soviet Union didn’t get all that much direct aid from America…

As far as whose soldiers did the most to defeat the Germans, it was the Soviet Union’s far and away. The German Army was destroyed in Russia by the heroic Red Army. From then on, the future was only one defeat after another in the East and the West.

The old saying that “The Red Army won the war in Europe and the US Navy won the war in the Pacific” is pretty much true.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If religion can’t stand on its own terms then it has no purpose. Whatever the outward appearance (the icons or the Wailing Wall) it’s the inner experience that counts. Without it we are not relating to God, in Dennitt’s phrase simply believing in belief.

When everyone observed the same practices, religion was part of everyone’s life. But once society becomes pluralized, whether by multiculturalism or from any other cause, religion must stand on its own merits and then the dry francoist version quite rightly fails.

Spain spent a generation in isolation and then suddenly the mass tourism industry was born and the coasts were flooded with Northern Europeans. Thousands of others came here, rented cars, and toured inland. Quite a few decided to live here. Many Spanish learned English and German to do business with all these extranjeros. Spain joined the EU and the infrastructure was transformed with the help of grants. Per capita incomes, for many lucky ones, rose rapidly. Democracy replaced dictatorship.

So very quickly, within one generation, there was a culture shock. The francoist version of religion, which once made a kind of sense in an isolated monoculture, no longer made any sense with different social and peer pressures.

In Spain then, we see a fast-track and more extreme version of what happened in other countries. Just as society has transformed, religion must also transform, not by music or ritual or digging in its heels but by reconnecting people with the living God. The antidote to francoism is spirituality and if people find that in a secular lifestyle because religion fails to provide it, then in a way I think good for them and out of that, eventually, will come something worthwhile. We’re all human after all, and God has His own plan.

Lots of things changed in Spain; the same sorts of things that appear to have been distructive to religious observance virtually everywhere else.

But again, and I realize you are defining “Francoism” in a way suited to your thesis. But the reality in this thread is that nobody has ever established a cause/effect link between Franco’s rule and any kind of “dry formalism” in religion. Nor has anyone established that such a religious observance had anything at all to do with the ascendancy of secular materialism worldwide. So, I guess one could just imagine that religious observance and belief was deficient in some way without proving that is was, and call it “Francoism”, then make the further leap that it somhow affected religious observance and belief now, without feeling the necessity of establishing any foundational basis for it at all. But reghardless, so far in this thread, neither connection has been established. It’s just as much a “This is what I think because it’s what I think” as it was when the thread began.

Perhaps, then, this whole theory can be called “Francoist”, since it’s just a dry assertion. And if, indeed, secular materialism is in no way dependent on Franco, which seems obvious since it didn’t start in Spain and has gained a great deal of influence worldwide without him, insisting that somehow Franco is responsible for the decline of religious fervor anywhere is doomed to failure. Not only is it doomed to failure, it aids the course of the true cause by positing a false cause.

 

[unafraid]

The Russion capacity to endure suffering rivals that of the sub-saharan Africans, and is to always to be acknowledged when discussing The Napoleanic and Second World Wars. Climate, or more specifically, brutal winter conditions, can also never be overlooked, nor undervalued, as a factor in their ability to survive.

However, specific to the aside topic discussed here, again I assert, Russia would have been overcome by the Germans, had it not been for American aid delivered via the lend-lease program. Frankly, since Russia’s agricultural regions fell into enemy hands, and occupation, they would have been starved into submission without american foodstuffs, and the equipment to move it.

Read Hubert van Tuyll’s, “Feed the Bear”. Perhaps then you will be forced to admit that without American aid, Russia could not have withstood the Germans.