[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Yes, but more serious than even that. It says that the individual is outside the church’s grace.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if the individual can’t receive the sacraments, he is by definition outside the church’s grace, because the church’s grace is bestowed by the sacraments.
Wasn’t there some kind of encyclical sent out by the Pope during WW2 condemning the Nazis? IIRC it was sent out by hand (because the mail system was in the hands of the Nazis and couldn’t be trusted) and was read out in every church in Germany.
Yes, you might be thinking of “Mit Brennender Sorge”.
I think it was briefly mentioned before, but I think that’s what you had in mind anyway.
[QUOTE=mutantmoose]
Wasn’t there some kind of encyclical sent out by the Pope during WW2 condemning the Nazis? IIRC it was sent out by hand (because the mail system was in the hands of the Nazis and couldn’t be trusted) and was read out in every church in Germany.
[/QUOTE]
“Mit brennender Sorge”
Bishop von Galen (bishop of Muenster) also preached some pretty famous anti-Nazi sermons, which was one of the things that inspired the White Rose Socety.
OK thanks. Yeah you mentioned it earlier. I didn’t realise that was what it was called.
Was there much denouncement of Nazism by the catholic hierarchy in countries not controlled by the Nazis eg Britain, US, South America etc?
Denouncing the dispossession & detention of non-Jews by the Nazis, I could see. But would a Catholic in 1940 make that kind of stand over Jews, “the murderers of Christ”?
What heresy has Fidel Castro preached? He’s been excommunicated since 1962 for political reasons.
Others who were excommunicated for political not doctrinal reasons include Napoleon Bonaparte, Victor Emmanuel II, Miguel Hidalgo, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, and John of England.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II
[/QUOTE]
Twice!
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
What heresy has Fidel Castro preached? He’s been excommunicated since 1962 for political reasons.
Others who were excommunicated for political not doctrinal reasons include Napoleon Bonaparte, Victor Emmanuel II, Miguel Hidalgo, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, and John of England.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect that you are simply lumping all their actions under “politics” when each of their “political” actions resulted in direct attacks upon the church–confiscation of property, imprisonment of religious, denial of the efficacy of the Sacraments, etc.
For example, Castro did not simply declare a Communist regime and leave it at that; he confiscated all church property, prohibited the celebration of the Sacraments, imprisoned clerics and religious, and made a general nuisance of himself. You may charcterize that as “political reasons,” but most folks would note that preventing priests from administering Sacraments is a pretty strong theological position.
ETA: If you absolutely need a heresy, try looking at his promotion of atheism. It is pretty much a lock on heresy for a Catholic to deny God. (Folks who are not Catholic cannot be accused of heresy, regardless of their beliefs, but Castro was raised Catholic. I would also be curious to see the citation for a formal excommunication of Castro, although I would not be surprised if one occurred.)
Victor Emmanuel was excommunicated for occupying papal territroy so it could be united with the rest of Italy. Unless there’s an obscure tenet of Catholic dogma requiring the Church to have a certain amount of land in order to conduct its sacraments, I’d call this an issue of politics not heresy.
The Catholic Church may choose to frame these issues in purely religious terms but it can stretch those terms to cover a wide variety of circumstances. If Pius had wanted to excommunicate Hitler, religious grounds for doing so could have been easily found.
Castro was excommunicated under a 1949 decree which forbid Catholics from supporting Communist governments. It was specifically invoked against him on January 3, 1962.
It seems through the 20th Century the Catholic Church establishment had much more problem with communism than with fascism, and was able to come to terms with fascism very suuccessfully, especially where it saw it as a bulwark to the red threat. Examples here are Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet (and the rest of South America) etc.
And this isn’t that surprising, if you hold establishments with the same contempt as I do. Fascism didn’t really ever threaten the role of the church establishment, and in many of the above cases supported it. Communism on the other hand threatened to take away all the shiny baubles that had been accumulated and the income that kept pouring in. And when it came down to a choice between belief and money, money won out for the heirarchy.
[QUOTE=villa]
And when it came down to a choice between belief and money, money won out for the heirarchy.
[/QUOTE]
And which belief would that be? I’m not aware of any Catholic belief which requires rulers to be nice.
The belief I would be referring to would be the whole “not killing and torturing political opponents” one.
Belief was a bad word. Basic ethics and values would have been better.
If you’re a right-wing dictator and you kill a few thousand political opponents, maybe we can let you off with a warning for not being nice. But once you’ve killed over ten million, I think we’ve passed the point of merely being politically incorrect.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
…Castro was excommunicated under a 1949 decree which forbid Catholics from supporting Communist governments. It was specifically invoked against him on January 3, 1962.
[/QUOTE]
Now I understand why the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded the way it did later that year!
[QUOTE=villa]
The belief I would be referring to would be the whole “not killing and torturing political opponents” one.
Belief was a bad word. Basic ethics and values would have been better.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that you’re assuming there were any such men available. Politics between the World Wars (and before, and after) was an ugly business. It was very often conducted when the only alternatives were murderers on both sides.
Take Germany. The country had come back from WWI to face small-scale civil war, an army with no loyalty to the government, and no one having any idea what was going on. Everybody had private armies, and the “civil” government had to bribe the army in doing its dirty work. Murder became a normal part of political business. After a while, the question is not, “Which is the best man?” but “Which is the least bad.” They possibly were wrong, but Hitler seemed to many to be the least bad choice. It may seem amazing to you, but just about everybody thought they could control Hitler, or that he’d mellow from being in power. Of course, Hitler (and the Communists) had attained power by destroying civil society and forcing people to take refuge in the extrememists. Hitler grabbed power but he made it seem like everything was perfectly fine… for a while.
If you look at Franco, or the Romanian fascists, or even the Italian ones, they weren’t really much worse than any other available choice. Franco was hated in his day, but he was relatively humane dictator in an incredibly unstable time, and his opponents (the Communists) were already brutal killers trying to take Spain down the Stalinist route. Franco was brutal, yes. But he was not a mad dog killer, which is mroe than I can say for the Reds he fought.
Mreover, the Church did oppose Hitler. It apprently simply didn’t do so sufficiently for your taste. But it was also concerned about the safety of Catholics in Germany, and very conscious of its vulnerability. Besides which, its previous actions did not have much effecty. People continued to support Hitler and the Nazis.
-Pope Pius XII could have denounced the nazis, but this would have had little (or no) effect upon the treatment of the Jews
-German and Italian catholics would have ignored Pius’s call for excommunication (of those mistreating Jews)
-the Vatican may well have been destroyed, had Pius adopted an agressive denunciation of nazi crimes
Given this, are criticisms of Pius’s wartime behavior justified?
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
The problem is that you’re assuming there were any such men available. Politics between the World Wars (and before, and after) was an ugly business. It was very often conducted when the only alternatives were murderers on both sides.
Take Germany. The country had come back from WWI to face small-scale civil war, an army with no loyalty to the government, and no one having any idea what was going on. Everybody had private armies, and the “civil” government had to bribe the army in doing its dirty work. Murder became a normal part of political business. After a while, the question is not, “Which is the best man?” but “Which is the least bad.” They possibly were wrong, but Hitler seemed to many to be the least bad choice. It may seem amazing to you, but just about everybody thought they could control Hitler, or that he’d mellow from being in power. Of course, Hitler (and the Communists) had attained power by destroying civil society and forcing people to take refuge in the extrememists. Hitler grabbed power but he made it seem like everything was perfectly fine… for a while.
If you look at Franco, or the Romanian fascists, or even the Italian ones, they weren’t really much worse than any other available choice. Franco was hated in his day, but he was relatively humane dictator in an incredibly unstable time, and his opponents (the Communists) were already brutal killers trying to take Spain down the Stalinist route. Franco was brutal, yes. But he was not a mad dog killer, which is mroe than I can say for the Reds he fought.
Mreover, the Church did oppose Hitler. It apprently simply didn’t do so sufficiently for your taste. But it was also concerned about the safety of Catholics in Germany, and very conscious of its vulnerability. Besides which, its previous actions did not have much effecty. People continued to support Hitler and the Nazis.
[/QUOTE]
I’m kind of tired of this justification for support for fascism, whether of the active type or the more passive refusal to actively oppose. There were alternatives in Germany; there were democratic forces. The rise of the Nazis or the Communists was not inevitable. But large segments of the German population, including apparently the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, viewed the SPD as equivalent to the Communists. Defeating the extremists without the organizational force and manpower of the SPD and its unions was going to be impossible. They saved the Republic in the Kapp Putsch, but were seen too much as the enemy by those elements of German society that COULD have joined a popular front and COULD have prevented the rise of fascism.
In Spain, also, there was no necessary choice between fascism with Franco and Stalinism. The Republicans were not Stalinists to the man. The Catholic Church made a conscious decision to line up with the forces of reaction, in order to preserve its privileges.
The same tired old excuse gets trotted out to justify the support for Pinochet. Or any of the other tinpot little fascist dictators that ruled south america.
[QUOTE=villa]
In Spain, also, there was no necessary choice between fascism with Franco and Stalinism. The Republicans were not Stalinists to the man. The Catholic Church made a conscious decision to line up with the forces of reaction, in order to preserve its privileges.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in Spain, the Republicans were killing priests and siezing churches, so it’s not like they were particularly better from the Church’s point of view.
As for Germany, the Center party did cooperate with the SPD, up until the 1930 fall of the Great Coalition and the coming of the Bruening government. In 1932, they backed Hindenburg over Hitler in the presidency elections, and they forced van Papen out of the party when they thought he was getting too close to the anti-democratic right wing.
So I don’t know why you’re claiming that the Catholic Church or the Center party didn’t cooperate with the SPD. They did. The SPD, the Center, and the DDP were the Weimar coalition, and they were pretty much always in coalition with each other throughout the entire Weimar period.
It’s true in the end, after a lot of internal fighting, they voted for the Enabling Act, but by that point, I don’t know that it made any difference.
[QUOTE=villa]
In Spain, also, there was no necessary choice between fascism with Franco and Stalinism. The Republicans were not Stalinists to the man.
[/QUOTE]
This is true. There were a lot of idiots. The Stalinists were firmly in control of everything on the “Republican” side. They exploited pro-democrat sentiment, but there was no way to persuade Stalin’s “useful idiots” that they were walking down the garden path into Hell on earth.