Church History and Catholic governments?

[PraiseChrist]

Hi,

It seems that today, Catholics look upon the history of Catholic Countries as the “good old days”. But, though today the state of modern society doesn’t really give much thought on self-sacrifices or striving to live a holy life, many countries in the past have committed many horrible acts of violence that it seems we’ve forgotten, while secular historical sources make it look like the past was a moral wreck, while today there is much more justice.

 

[anon67074017]

I agree with your statement. Certain Catholic governments like Francoist Span and Mussolini’s Italy committed crimes against their people in the name of right-wing order. Modern left-wing governments seem to promote an “anything goes” agenda. We need to find a balance between the two types of governments that is compatible with the Church. My personal favorite Catholic state was Napoleonic France. Bonapartist monarchies govern with libertarian philosophy and Catholic truth.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

There is no such thing as a Catholic government. There are Catholics in government. There have been some in governments who have tried to co-opt the pope.

 

[PraiseChrist]

There is no such thing as a Catholic government. There are Catholics in government. There have been some in governments who have tried to co-opt the pope.

Yes, by “Catholic countries” I mean countries that were positively influenced by the Catholic Church and had changed a lot of their laws according to Catholic teachings, but a number of which failed in other aspects. Perhaps an example of a “Catholic Country” would have been a number of kingdoms during Middle Ages.

 

[Hatikvah]

I would note that most hyper-Catholic countries had oppressive systems to Jews, pagans, and Protestants if there were any to be found. Yes, the Netherlands and Germany were generally responsible with freedom religion after the 1555 Treaty of Augsburg, but they were increasingly secular after the Renaissance.

Look at the Kingdom of Hungary. During the Reformation, almost 80-85% of the peasant population converted to Protestantism. However, the Habsburg government told the nobility and clerics to stop it. So they revived the Hungarian Inquisition (a minor office, a sub-set of the Roman Inquisition).

Also, the Hungarians persecuted pagans. St. Stephen I of Hungary was a brilliant person, but after his reign it all went downwards. This was inevitable when they couldn’t coexist. (Also, the pope chose the king of Hungary until the 1500s.)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You should cite your sources for those kinds of statements. I don’t think the pope appointed the rulers of the Hungarian Empire. And, what does the Habsburg dynasty have to do with Hungry?

Some European rulers were committed to Catholic ideas and virtues, but that does not mean that the papal office condoned all of their actions. Sometimes their zeal was misused. That misuse should not be looked at as a reflection of the Church.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Yes, by “Catholic countries” I mean countries that were positively influenced by the Catholic Church and had changed a lot of their laws according to Catholic teachings, but a number of which failed in other aspects.

What does this have to do with Church history?

Perhaps an example of a “Catholic Country” would have been a number of kingdoms during Middle Ages.

That is not an example, it’s a general statement. An example would be a certain Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[Hatikvah]

You should cite your sources for those kinds of statements. I don’t think the pope appointed the rulers of the Hungarian Empire.

Oops, I goofed up. St. Stephen I of Hungary had his legitimacy ensured by the pope, although he more or less just conquered the pagan cities and forced them to submit. He was crowned by Pope Sylvester II as the first Christian monarch of a new Christian nation.[Source]

Also, it should be noted that various Habsburg emperors were anointed and crowned by popes (not necessarily elected).

And, what does the Habsburg dynasty have to do with Hungry?

From 1526-1918, Hungary was under Habsburg Austrian rule (though they were under pressure from Germanic states from before that). It was somewhat autonomous for a time, but there were some revolutions and uprisings (e.g., 1848). They became co-autonomous with Austria when it was Austria-Hungary till WWI.

Some European rulers were committed to Catholic ideas and virtues, but that does not mean that the papal office condoned all of their actions. Sometimes their zeal was misused. That misuse should not be looked at as a reflection of the Church.

Of course, we cannot blame the Church or the papacy for the issues of Europeans and their monarchs. Plus, in the Middle Ages, a lot of stuff was crazy!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

From 1526-1918, Hungary was under Habsburg Austrian rule (though they were under pressure from Germanic states from before that). It was somewhat autonomous for a time, but there were some revolutions and uprisings (e.g., 1848). They became co-autonomous with Austria when it was Austria-Hungary till WWI.

The Hungarian empire was divided up after the Turks invaded in 1526. Part of it was taken by the Habsburgs. Protestantism gained a foothold as Catholism went unsupported in the region before 1526. Secular property owners took over formerly Catholic lands, and those owners and lands then became Lutheran.

There was no ‘Hungarian Inquisition’. There were attempts to take back what had previously belonged to the Church. There was condemnation of Protestantism early on in this area, but laws were also enacted to give religious freedom as time went on.

The recovery of Buda (Ofen) from the Turks led to a change very favourable to the Church. There were no longer Protestant revolts, and, as the Turks were driven out, the Church regained possession of its lost territories. Ecclesiastical affairs in these districts were now reorganized, new churches were built, new clergy sent, etc. In claiming its former property the Church met with the opposition of the Government, which would not consent to the restoration of ecclesiastical lands without legal proof. The relations of the denominations were settled by the Diet of 1687 on the basis of the enactments of the Diet of 1681; freedom of conscience was granted, with safeguards of the rights of lords-of-the-manor, the return of the banished Protestant ministers was permitted, the Protestant nobles were allowed to build churches for their private use, etc. These enactments, however, soon proved insufficient, and what was lacking was settled by royal edict as cases requiring decision appeared. The Diet of 1687 also acknowledged the Hungarian Crown to be hereditary in the Hapsburg family and in addition to this renounced the free election of the king.
newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

 

[BornInMarch]

I agree with your statement. Certain Catholic governments like Francoist Span and Mussolini’s Italy committed crimes against their people in the name of right-wing order. Modern left-wing governments seem to promote an “anything goes” agenda. We need to find a balance between the two types of governments that is compatible with the Church. My personal favorite Catholic state was Napoleonic France. Bonapartist monarchies govern with libertarian philosophy and Catholic truth.

Mussolini wasn’t Catholic. He was an ardent atheist all his life, and in many ways repressed the church.

 

[LethalMouse]

Mussolini wasn’t Catholic. He was an ardent atheist all his life, and in many ways repressed the church.

When you just randomly blame the church for stuff, well then they seem quite bad.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would note that most hyper-Catholic countries had oppressive systems to Jews, pagans, and Protestants if there were any to be found. Yes, the Netherlands and Germany were generally responsible with freedom religion after the 1555 Treaty of Augsburg, but they were increasingly secular after the Renaissance.

Look at the Kingdom of Hungary. During the Reformation, almost 80-85% of the peasant population converted to Protestantism. However, the Habsburg government told the nobility and clerics to stop it. So they revived the Hungarian Inquisition (a minor office, a sub-set of the Roman Inquisition).

Also, the Hungarians persecuted pagans. St. Stephen I of Hungary was a brilliant person, but after his reign it all went downwards. This was inevitable when they couldn’t coexist. (Also, the pope chose the king of Hungary until the 1500s.)

When you have a religion that is 2,000 years old and progresses naturally as the society and culture progress, you are bound to have bad incidents - especially when looking back retrospectively.

From our modern perspective, we can easily say shame on them. And it does look like the Catholic religion was involved with horrible crimes at times. But then again, if there was ever a horrible crime to be committed in Western history, you better bet that Catholics were involved, because Catholics have made up that vast amount of Western history. For example, you don’t have as many Protestant examples (although there were Protestant crimes as well), because Protestantism is young and delves into the modern period. Catholicism, on the other hand, was coming to maturity hundreds of years before – when society at large had much maturing to do.

So let’s not exaggerate bad Catholic moments by forgetting proper perspective. We are dealing with a religion centuries older than Protestant groups, making up vast amounts of people. And we are dealing with a religion that has endured ages very different than our own. For example, if Calvinism was around a few hundred years earlier, and if it was the dominant faith, it would be no surprise if there were some sort of Calivinist Inquisition. Or Crusades participated by Calvinists. The Crusaders were Catholic because… the West was Catholic. Etc.

In 1300, if there was a good person in the West, he was probably Catholic. In 1300, if there were an evil person in the West, he was probably Catholic.

We know what a saint is. Bottom line: Is there anything in the Catholic creed that naturally leads to any of these bad events or crimes? If not, we would say these events are corruption of what the Church and Catholicism is. Not its essence.

 

[Hatikvah]

When you have a religion that is 2,000 years old and progresses naturally as the society and culture progress, you are bound to have bad incidents - especially when looking back retrospectively.

From our modern perspective, we can easily say shame on them. And it does look like the Catholic religion was involved with horrible crimes at times. But then again, if there was ever a horrible crime to be committed in Western history, you better bet that Catholics were involved, because Catholics have made up that vast amount of Western history. For example, you don’t have as many Protestant examples (although there were Protestant crimes as well), because Protestantism is young and delves into the modern period. Catholicism, on the other hand, was coming to maturity hundreds of years before – when society at large had much maturing to do.

So let’s not exaggerate bad Catholic moments by forgetting proper perspective. We are dealing with a religion centuries older than Protestant groups, making up vast amounts of people. And we are dealing with a religion that has endured ages very different than our own. For example, if Calvinism was around a few hundred years earlier, and if it was the dominant faith, it would be no surprise if there were some sort of Calivinist Inquisition. Or Crusades participated by Calvinists. The Crusaders were Catholic because… the West was Catholic. Etc.

In 1300, if there was a good person in the West, he was probably Catholic. In 1300, if there were an evil person in the West, he was probably Catholic.

We know what a saint is. Bottom line: Is there anything in the Catholic creed that naturally leads to any of these bad events or crimes? If not, we would say these events are corruption of what the Church and Catholicism is. Not its essence.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

And if we have any religion around for long enough, we will have some holy wars and embarrassing incidents involving it and its people. You wouldn’t imagine Buddhism being a religion of fear and war, but it has happened (and of course, the entire Wikipedia article on it).

Also, we know that Catholicism or the wider view of Christianity does not incite violence; rather, people have used it as an excuse (even if a bad one).

 

[twf]

Oops, I goofed up. St. Stephen I of Hungary had his legitimacy ensured by the pope, although he more or less just conquered the pagan cities and forced them to submit. He was crowned by Pope Sylvester II as the first Christian monarch of a new Christian nation.[Source]

Also, it should be noted that various Habsburg emperors were anointed and crowned by popes (not necessarily elected).

From 1526-1918, Hungary was under Habsburg Austrian rule (though they were under pressure from Germanic states from before that). It was somewhat autonomous for a time, but there were some revolutions and uprisings (e.g., 1848). They became co-autonomous with Austria when it was Austria-Hungary till WWI.

Of course, we cannot blame the Church or the papacy for the issues of Europeans and their monarchs. Plus, in the Middle Ages, a lot of stuff was crazy!

Regarding the anointing and crowning of emperors, it is a long established Christian tradition for bishops of the Church to anoint and crown Christian monarchs. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury still does so in the case of the British Monarch. This is rooted in Biblical tradition - St Samuel the prophet anointed St David King over Israel.

 

[anon67074017]

Mussolini wasn’t Catholic. He was an ardent atheist all his life, and in many ways repressed the church.

The official religion of fascist Italy was Catholicism though.

 

[Ontheway]

I’m not sure what is meant by “official religion”.

 

[Ontheway]

Regarding the anointing and crowning of emperors, it is a long established Christian tradition for bishops of the Church to anoint and crown Christian monarchs. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury still does so in the case of the British Monarch. This is rooted in Biblical tradition - St Samuel the prophet anointed St David King over Israel.

That may be so, but the tradition of separation of church and state is very long indeed. Christian monarchs did have to gain approval of Rome (Henry rejected that notion after some attempts) but the church did not exercise direct control over any monarchy. Very often there was tension between church and state and sometimes it ended badly. Christian princes killed bishops and were excommunicated.

 

[twf]

That may be so, but the tradition of separation of church and state is very long indeed. Christian monarchs did have to gain approval of Rome (Henry rejected that notion after some attempts) but the church did not exercise direct control over any monarchy. Very often there was tension between church and state and sometimes it ended badly. Christian princes killed bishops and were excommunicated.

I would say that your statement is a bit anachronistic. The modern concept of “separation of Church and state”, say as understood by an American, is not an old tradition at all…its rooted in the Enlightenment. Yes, there was definitely distinct spheres of power…the Church didn’t have direct authority over Christian princes, but there was a complex and intricate relationship between ecclesiastical and secular authorities. A prince’s power was always seen to be ultimately derived from God, as was a bishop’s. There is also the not uncommon phenomenon of prince-bishops who acted both as Bishop over a diocese and Prince over a secular domain. In fact at least two still exist today: the Bishop of Urgell (who is also Co-Prince of Andorra) and the Bishop of Rome (who is also Monarch of the Vatican City State).