Catholic Church in Spain fights Franco-era image

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When you have a thread where the same people who roundly condemn Franco as a brutal dictator also praise the “heroic” red Army(usm.maine.edu/crm/faculty/jim/raphael.htm )you know that their complaints are purely political. I am sure had Franco had been a socialist they would be praising Franco and his “heroic” supporters.
The heroism of the Red Army in defeating the German invaders of their motherland is unquestioned. Save for the Poles, none suffered so much or fought so valiantly on behalf of themselves and their allies as did the Red Army.

That those ordinary, too often uneducated and unchurched soldiers, hardened by battle, and fully aware of what had happened to their own women and children at the hands of the Germans, would take out equivalent revenge is not surprising,even as it can be** rightly condemned** by those whose women did not suffer the same fate as the Russian women.
 
here is a really simple question for the anti-franco team. if this guy was the monster you say he is, show me an offical denunciation or rebuke of franco and his nationalists from the catholic church. not a random priest or basque bishop, but from a pope or encyclical or some other writings from a vatican congregation like there is for freemasonry, atheism, communism and nazism.

if this guy was so bad, how come the church supported him?
Franco WAS a monster.

His forces killed millions of people before and after the Civil War, often just for crimes of association.

In other words, under the Franco regime you could be executed just for the ‘crime’ of having a brother who was a communist, knowing a labor leader as a friend, or being a member of one of the political parties on the Republican side. In Franco Spain, having the wrong kinds of friends and family could be deadly.

Here are some of my sources:

A newspaper article:
articles.latimes.com/2010/may…arzon-20100516

A UC San Diego investigation of mass graves in Spain from the Civil War era:
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/thisweek/20…ches_scott.asp

Another newspaper article:
en.mercopress.com/2010/04/15/…-federal-court

Wikipedia (not the most reliable of sources I will admit):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_%28Spain%29

One more newspaper article:
newsweek.com/2008/09/04/war-bones.html

Amnesty International Reports:
amnesty.nl/bibliotheek_ve…echting_case_2

As for how the Catholic Church could support such a monster, that’s a question that the Church itself has to answer.
 
Because the War was really a power struggle - to maintain landowner power and army power and the Church was a major landowner, its position entrenched by the 1851 Concordat where the State paid its salaries and gave it control over all the schools, universities etc in Spain.
This sounds a lot like the Church/State arrangement that existed until recently in Ireland.
 
The heroism of the Red Army in defeating the German invaders of their motherland is unquestioned. Save for the Poles, none suffered so much or fought so valiantly on behalf of themselves and their allies as did the Red Army.

That those ordinary, too often uneducated and unchurched soldiers, hardened by battle, and fully aware of what had happened to their own women and children at the hands of the Germans, would take out equivalent revenge is not surprising,even as it can be** rightly condemned** by those whose women did not suffer the same fate as the Russian women.
So when Franco supporters raped people it is an indication of what a brutal dictator he was. But the rapes by the “heroic” red Army are discounted why? Because they’re communist of course! And because the German women had a coming!

Lke I said once a Franco deriders started praising the Red Army their credibility went right out the window
 
So I assume that went communists rape people it is less egregious than when fascists rape people? Are you still standing by your description of the red Army as “heroic”?
 
So when Franco supporters raped people it is an indication of what a brutal dictator he was. But the rapes by the “heroic” red Army are discounted why? Because they’re communist of course! And because the German women had a coming!
Read the articles. Those German rapes were rightly condemned even as one can understand why men whose own families had experienced atrocities would do such things. The German women didn’t have it coming any more than Russian and Ukrainian and Polish women had it coming from those who served in the German ARmy.
Lke I said once a Franco deriders started praising the Red Army their credibility went right out the window
Laughable.
 
Politics, all politics. Communist rapists “heroic” . Fascist rapists “bad” Such is what passes for logic among those on the Left.
 
Things were pretty gray and grim in the U.S. and elsewhere during the Franco era. I question whether floats and processions and such were absent during Franco’s rule, except to whatever extent nobody could afford to do such things. Spain was very poor during that era for a number of reasons.

It’s awfully easy to observe externals that are otherwise unappealing and assume they have a cause/effect relationship with a decline in religious observance or fervor. We have, for instance, people in the U.S. now, who attribute it to unappealing church structures or silly music. Maybe there is a connection and maybe there isn’t. But there are also people who feel more traditional structures and classic music have that effect. Personally, I question whether either one has a significant effect on religious fervor or observance, and certainly not as compared to the pervasive and virtually obsessive consumerism, blatant, constant attacks on religion and incessant appeals to the attractiveness of sin in this society. But it’s easily observable that the decline in religious observance has occurred almost in lockstep with material prosperity and individual obsession therewith.

I have long been dubious of claims that “dull, empty formalism” and the like, are destructive of religious fervor. First of all, because such attributes are in the eye of the beholder and may not be in the mind of the observant person. Not to offend anyone, but one might very well look with disfavor on what some think of as an excessive formalism in Eastern icons and prayer practices relating to them. They are almost mathematical formulations that, as a consequence, doubtless have to some an unattractive, dull, even repetitious aspect. Yet, when you study the subject and its purpose, and “get into it” you see that they actually are, or can be, a doorway to a genuine piety. One’s own shallowness is what causes one to think of them as dull and lifeless expressions. Look at the orthodox Jews who stand at the “Wailing Wall”, bowing incessantly while reading things they have read innumerable times before. It’s hard to imagine anything more “dull, gray and lifeless looking” than that. Yet I personally don’t doubt their sincerity or their fervor.

I will agree with you that “religion” (various churchmen, actually) has its own part of the blame to share. Religious fervor and excessive materialism and permissiveness are impossible to reconcile. Nevertheless, many try to do so.

But I have never seen anybody actually connect any of that with Franco with anything remotely approaching an objectively persuasive foundational basis.

Despite being accused on here of favoring Franco’s rule, I don’t. I simply don’t think a case has been made for the proposition that he had anything to with declining religious observance in Spain or anywhere else. I think he’s simply irrelevant to a phenomenon that has other, more likely, causes.
I will make a case for you then.

People resentment being told what to do at gunpoint.

During the Franco years the Spanish people lived under the (often unspoken) threat “act like good little Catholic boys and girls or else.”

And in the short term it worked.

During the Franco years mass attendance was high, everyone listened to the priests, and ‘foreign’ (in the eyes of the Church) influences like Feminism and Islam were rejected.

But people who were discriminated against under the system (like women, Protestants, and various minorities) had a lot of hostility for the Franco regime and the Church associated with it. However, most people publicly supported the system because you were all too likely to ‘disappear’ if the state decided you were some kind of enemy.

But the system collapsed when Franco died, and the Spanish branch of the Catholic Church lost its influence over the government. Now the Church must actually win the hearts and minds of Spaniards to compel their obedience. Something that is much harder to do when the priests tolerance and mercy is so often seen as suspect (thanks to the Church’s long working relationship with the brutal Franco).
 
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.
Franco had people killed for crimes of association.

It would be more accurate to say that he was a mass murderer.
 
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
Did the The Joint Assembly of Bishops and Priests have the authority to make statements on behalf of the Church as a whole?
 
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.
Actually the U.S. was not in any position to ‘bail out’ Europe until the 20th century.
 
I will make a case for you then.

People resentment being told what to do at gunpoint.

During the Franco years the Spanish people lived under the (often unspoken) threat “act like good little Catholic boys and girls or else.”

And in the short term it worked.

During the Franco years mass attendance was high, everyone listened to the priests, and ‘foreign’ (in the eyes of the Church) influences like Feminism and Islam were rejected.

But people who were discriminated against under the system (like women, Protestants, and various minorities) had a lot of hostility for the Franco regime and the Church associated with it. However, most people publicly supported the system because you were all too likely to ‘disappear’ if the state decided you were some kind of enemy.

But the system collapsed when Franco died, and the Spanish branch of the Catholic Church lost its influence over the government. Now the Church must actually win the hearts and minds of Spaniards to compel their obedience. Something that is much harder to do when the priests tolerance and mercy is so often seen as suspect (thanks to the Church’s long working relationship with the brutal Franco).
I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no foundational information provided to support a single line of this. Simply asserting something doesn’t make it true.

Come up with something with which to support some of this if you can. Are you really saying people were forced to go to Mass at gunpoint? Well, if you can prove that, do so. If you can’t, give it up.

I doubt you have any information to even support the proposition that Catholics went to Mass more then because of anything Franco ever did. It’s at least equally possible they did so because they wanted to and felt a sincere moral obligation to do it. I don’t know that, but you don’t know the opposite either.
 
Its because he promoted the Church and got rid of people conservative Catholics dislike.
 
For the next hundred years, American conservatives will continue to remind Europe that they will always “owe us” for “saving” them in World War II. 😦
 
This sounds a lot like the Church/State arrangement that existed until recently in Ireland.
I’m not persuaded yet that landowning had anything to do with the Spanish Civil War. It has been my impression that the part of the population supporting the Nationalists was largely rural, whereas the Republican supporters were largely urban proletariat and intellectual types, and particularly in those areas like the Basque region and Catalonia, that had separatist aspirations.

Maybe someone has competing information, but it really needs to be recognized that a very significant portion of the population did not support the Republicans, and, had most who did support the Republicans known what communism was and the likelihood that it would take over the entire movement, it is questionable how many of them would have continued in that support.

It may be observed, for example, that the communist faction and the anarchist faction among the Republicans actually had shooting wars between them during the civil war. Neither the Catholic Church nor Franco had anything to do with that. It had to do with irreconcilable differences between those factions within the Republican ranks.
 
I don’t doubt many in Spain cite “Francoism” as a way of excusing faithlessness. After all, we hear the same kind of thing in the U.S., though it seems to be receding. Those who wished to interpret Vatican II as an invitation to faithlessness and licentiousness were fond of disparagingly talking about the “bad old days” pre VII, when the “old ladies would rattle their rosaries at Mass”, the “nuns taught religion by rote”, etc, etc, etc. I truly don’t think the critics of the “bad old days” really had any handle on what was going on in the souls of those they so blithely accused of “dryness” in religion.

I remember one of my former classmates explaining to me not too terribly long ago how he left the Church because there wasn’t enough “fellowshipping” and, besides, “Sister Martha” was hard on him years ago and (oh my!) made him memorize his catechism responses. I remember “Sister Martha” helping him daily so he could keep up with his classmates, and she was anything but hard on him. Of course, he divorced his wife of 30 years and married another, much younger, woman with whom he was having an affair before the divorce, so my “dubious meter” pegged out on every single element of his self-justification. “Sister Martha”, in truth, gave way to Hugh Hefner in this fellow’s life, and he found a way around the “rote” catechism response concerning the sin of adultery. He affirmed the sin and condemned the learning that taught him it was a sin. And Franco is nothing but some Spaniards’ “Sister Martha”. A scapegoat for one’s own bad behavior.

.
How many of these ‘Sister Marthas’ committed genocide while enjoying Church support?
 
When you have a thread where the same people who roundly condemn Franco as a brutal dictator also praise the “heroic” red Army(usm.maine.edu/crm/faculty/jim/raphael.htm )you know that their complaints are purely political. I am sure had Franco had been a socialist they would be praising Franco and his “heroic” supporters.
Despising Franco doesn’t require me to love the Republicans any more than hating the Nazis requires you to love the Soviets (who fought the Nazis fiercely).
 
So when Franco supporters raped people it is an indication of what a brutal dictator he was. But the rapes by the “heroic” red Army are discounted why? Because they’re communist of course! And because the German women had a coming!

Lke I said once a Franco deriders started praising the Red Army their credibility went right out the window
You know Bob, I could sympathize with your point of view if you were arguing that all rapists are bad. But your arguing that the other side had rapists too, so it wasn’t that big a deal.

While the truly moral thing would be to not tolerate rapists at all.
 
Politics, all politics. Communist rapists “heroic” . Fascist rapists “bad” Such is what passes for logic among those on the Left.
Actually its just a mirror image of the Franco fans logic Bob.

Which goes something like this:
The Republicans were terrible people for killings so many, but the atrocities committed by the Nationalists were no big deal. Besides, the Republicans and their communist friends had it coming anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top