The Catholic Church and Fascist Dictators

[barsapp]

Philip P:

I think its pretty clear, in retrospect, that the people in the Church hierarcy who allied themselves with (…) Franco were mistaken. Why try to defend the indefensible?
Philip P:

It’s disturbing to see people being apologists for Franco here. That’s really not a good path to go down. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary. As I pointed out in my post further up, mistakes by members of the Church don’t invalidate the Church itself.Let’s not make the short-sighted and ill-advised mistake of compounding past failures by excusing them./QUOTE]

I still do not understand what the problem with Francisco Franco is…

May be I’m not SO politically correct minded.

We have to put historical facts in the right context. It is so easy to judge afterwards!

I would ask those weekend comfortable sofa judges of the Holy Church why they do not convert at the sight of the good She did through more than two thousand year history. Perhaps they prefer the works of the anti Catholics heroes: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, the judges of the US Supreme Court of Justice… I must confess: this is definitively NOT politically correct.

Do not desecrate the memory of those who died defending the Gospel.

newsaints.faithweb.com/martyrs/MSPC.htm

Wish we could do the same!

 

[thessalonian]

Call it want you want, maybe a demented way of looking at things but I like it when people demand that the Catholic Church today should apologize for something in the Church that happened 500 years ago. Unbeknowest to them they’re acknowledging our doctrine of the communion of the saints in order to tie us to the sins of those in the past. When one member of the body sufferes or sins, the whole body suffers. Not just present day but throughout all of history. Think about it. If there is no spiritual tie between the Church today and the Church of the past then why should we apologize for the bad. Of course what they won’t acknowledge is the good, as they focus on the bad.

 

[Philip_P]

barsapp:

Philip P:

I think its pretty clear, in retrospect, that the people in the Church hierarcy who allied themselves with (…) Franco were mistaken. Why try to defend the indefensible?
Philip P:

It’s disturbing to see people being apologists for Franco here. That’s really not a good path to go down. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary. As I pointed out in my post further up, mistakes by members of the Church don’t invalidate the Church itself.Let’s not make the short-sighted and ill-advised mistake of compounding past failures by excusing them./QUOTE]

I still do not understand what the problem with Francisco Franco is…

May be I’m not SO politically correct minded.

We have to put historical facts in the right context. It is so easy to judge afterwards!

I would ask those weekend comfortable sofa judges of the Holy Church why they do not convert at the sight of the good She did through more than two thousand year history. Perhaps they prefer the works of the anti Catholics heroes: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, the judges of the US Supreme Court of Justice… I must confess: this is definitively NOT politically correct.

Do not desecrate the memory of those who died defending the Gospel.

newsaints.faithweb.com/martyrs/MSPC.htm

Wish we could do the same!

So your argument is that since those Franco was fighting against were bad, Franco was good? Sorry, I’ve never bought into the logic of two wrongs makes a right. Whether justifying Stalinism by pointing out that he helped us defeat Hitler, or justifying the U.S’s support of right-wing dictators because they opposed Communism, it’s a losing proposition.

 

[David_Paul]

The only way the Catholics, dead and alive, can atone for their sins is to no longer be Catholics.

Sell off all church assets and turn the Vatican in a Museum dedicated to remembering the crimes against humanity committed by the church.

Maybe have branches in every country on earth telling citizens how terrible it was the church ever existed.

But even that probably would be not enough.

Just an acknowledgement of guilt to be passed down from father to son to be revenged for generations.

Sorta like what we saw in the Soviet Union and see in the Middle East.

 

[Franze]

Philip P:

So your argument is that since those Franco was fighting against were bad, Franco was good? Sorry, I’ve never bought into the logic of two wrongs makes a right. Whether justifying Stalinism by pointing out that he helped us defeat Hitler, or justifying the U.S’s support of right-wing dictators because they opposed Communism, it’s a losing proposition.

In these situations you can´t choose much more, who was better a Franco goverment or a pro-Stalin goverment, this is the question. I don´t like any form of goverment. Why? We have a democracy now in Spain but leftists want to destroy the national unity, all means of communication are leftists( the former week in the public TV, there was a programme called “other marriages” where two men are married and this is a programme for children for 0-4 years) in addtion we have abortion( 80 thousand per year) more that the Franquist represion in 36 years
The democracy isn´t the best government because falls in relativism.
Franco is better than democracy, no!, because he is a dictator, but he made a war to a communist dictatorship not a democracy, well, do you think that the elections of Ucraine where Janukovich won were fair, they weren´t, the elections in 1936 where the Popular Front robbed the elections, in the provinces where the right won, the results were invalid, for this reason they won, in addition two years before, in a right goverment, the left (PSOE and ERC) made a coup of state that provokes 2 thousand died in Asturias, many of them monks and priests.
Here you have to say that nor Franco is good and republicans bad neither the opposite, they were both bad, but the republicans were worse than Franco.
In addition Suarez the second president of democracy was franquistb

 

[Axion]

Philip P:

So your argument is that since those Franco was fighting against were bad, Franco was good? Sorry, I’ve never bought into the logic of two wrongs makes a right. Whether justifying Stalinism by pointing out that he helped us defeat Hitler, or justifying the U.S’s support of right-wing dictators because they opposed Communism, it’s a losing proposition.

I know this wasn’t posted to me. But what I was saying was that if one side is violently anti-Christian, to the extent of sytematically wrecking churches, closing church monasteries, schools and institutions, and even killing priests and religious, then it is very hard to blame christians for leaning to the other side.

I am naturally left-leaning - but I can see this.

 

[Philip_P]

Given the historical record, though, however excusable it may be, I think it’s still a mistake. Look at what headaches such logic has lead the US into - it seems all our wars are always against the very evils we supported and nurtured in previous conflicts. If this is true for a political power such as the U.S., how much more for the Church.

Church buildings can be re-built and monastic communities re-constituted. The damage done from alliances, or at least collusion, with evil regimes, though, is far harder to repair. It scandalized the faithful and lends legitimacy to injustice.

Sometimes there is no right answer. In such cases, we should loudly point this out.

 

[barsapp]

Philip P:

I think it’s still a mistake. Church buildings can be re-built and monastic communities re-constituted. The damage done from alliances, or at least collusion, with evil regimes, though, is far harder to repair.

OK. Let’s point out, at this stage of the thread, a few “crystal” clear conclusions:

• Franco was not a “totalitarian”, was not a “fascist”, was not a “bloodthirsty” dictator. It was not a totalitarian, nor a tyrannical regime. He took power after a terrible civil war where the anti-Catholics forces were, thank God, defeated. Would have won the anarchist-communist-republican side, the Holy Catholic Church had been erased from the face of Spain. Do not forget the martyrs of the religious persecution in Spain. Learn from the martyrs and heroes of the Spanish Civil War.
• Given that specific historical situation the Church supported Franco’s regime. Here comes the relationship between spiritual and political powers, God and Caesar. Of course simplifying, because this is a complex matter, we can say that if the political regime is a Christian, Catholic one, we will have co-operation. Catholicism is not only “private spiritual life”. In Spain, Latin American, and other countries, the Catholic Church had a relevant role in the foundation of the States and the conformation of the national identity. If the political regime remains “neutral” (if this is possible in any way) there are still some fields for co-operation with the Church. If the regime is an anti Catholic one… we all know what happens. In this case Catholic resistance is allowed and necessary. Remember the revolutionary war of the “Cristeros” in Mexico against the Marxist regime which persecuted and banned the Church. sspx.ca/Angelus/2002_January/The_Cristeros.htm
• Franco was also a sincere Catholic. Comparisons with other dictators (Hitler, Stalin, even Mussolini, Peron (who was excommunicated)) are not accurate. Conclusion: no reasons for the Church to oppose Franco.
• “But it was a dictatorship”, they say, “Church MUST oppose dictatorships” (I do not why they consider this is the first, main, duty of the Church… Is that written anywhere?).
• My answer: OK, let’s oppose the dictatorship of relativism, let’s combat this false democracy that denies natural law, let’s fight against the democracy of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage… Would “they” join us?

Damned be the “good” that did nothing to stop the triumph of evil.

 

[deekod1967]

Hello, and thank you all for your very informative contributions to this topic.

The Catechism seems to be pretty clear that the Church has a duty to promote “the common good” in society (cf1918-1927)

Since its beginnings, can we honestly say the Church has NEVER failed to promote the common good in all political struggles?

I would have to say wholeheartedly NO, certainly in the case of Pinochet.

We must humbly accept that our Church is very human and therefore CANNOT live up to its teachings, and this fact always has (and always will) continue to be used against us by anyone who has a mind to, it is OUR Cross to bear with silent humility.

As Our Lord said “let anyone without sin throw the first stone” - we have in fact all failed to live up to the Church’s teachings in many ways during our lives, in my case - pretty much on a constant daily basis.

In my book the trick is continuing to strive to show people by word and deed that there really is more to the Catholic Faith than the all the bad press would suggest - even if the bad press is sometimes justified.

Many thanks again to Philip P for his insight, and everyone for your very helpful posts on this topic.

God bless,

Derek

 

[David_Paul]

deekod1967:

NEVER failed to promote the common good in all political struggles?

I would have to say wholeheartedly NO, certainly in the case of Pinochet.

I was an exchange student in Chile just before Allende tried to turn the country into a police state and Soviet satellite.

A group of Chileans from their Lake district (Llanquihue ) are visting my sister this month in CT. Had Pinochet not acted, they would be lucky if they were alive today.

Ever read what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about the fall of Allende? Marsden (and other communists) view it as a great tragedy because the country was on the verge of “another 1917.”

Wonderful huh? 1917 led to the murder by their own governments of tens of millions of people.

And Allende supporters (at least those ones) think his death was tragic.

 

[deekod1967]

Thank you David,

The point would seem to me to be this - the Church has usually chosen the lesser of two evils when deciding which side to back in political struggles throughout its history, with a bias towards the side who would tolerate freedom of religious expression (i.e. Pinochet)

The question is this - the Church must have known of the atrocities carried out by Pinochet, to back such a man goes against the teachings of Christ - love thy neighbour as I love you - why did they not condemn Allende AND Pinochet?

See AI links below …

trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html

I underline again that the Church has and will continue to fall short of its teachings, and in the case of Pinochet this was a huge error of judgement and in full public view, the Church should be humble and recognise its mistakes, the non-believers may be inspired to look beyond the bad press.

As Catholic we must accept the Church can make mistakes and has made some really bad ones in the past, just as we all do in our everyday lives. The resulting bad press the Church gets forms our Cross - our challenge is can we accept it with humility?

I suggest we all pray for the Holy Spirit to inspire a sense of humility within the Church, and help it accept the mistakes it has made in the past and try to make amends with the world, this to me would the greatest form of evangelisation the Church can undertake at this time.

Selling off the contents of the Vatican Museum for the poor would be a good start on this long road to humility.

God bless,

Derek.

 

[David_Paul]

I don’t know what the church did or did not do.

Far as “atrocities”, Chile was at war. As I mentioned, the country was invaded (at the request of Allende) by thousands of Stasi, StB and Cuban secret police. Pinochet’s troops killed lots of them. As well as those Chileans who fought with the thugs (and Stasi were thugs, as bad as the CHEKA and SS).

Chile was under martial law. But people could go to church, run a business and raise a family with no major problems. What was forbidden was engaging in politics which supported the communists who were trying to turn Chile into another Cuba.