Two Cartoons and a Resolution
Bill Mauldin was one of the great political cartoonists of the 20th century. Starting as a cartoonist for Stars & Stripes during World War II, he was beloved for his cartoons about Willy and Joe, two common GIs whose “adventures” accurately mirrored the problems, hopes and dreams of the soldiers around him. Less well known are the cartoons he drew in the immediate postwar period. He angrily attacked the bigotry and hypocrisy that he found back in America. A favorite target was the 40′s version of “support our troops” that was long on rhetoric and very, very short on actually doing anything for veterans.
The following two cartoons were drawn in 1946.
Resolved: the Church has gained nothing from aligning itself with right wing regimes except dirty hands. Our association with such regimes in the end only weakens the Church, driving away members and silencing our prophetic voice.
Comments are closed.
As long as you’d say the same of the Left too, I’m all behind this.
The truth is, though, sometimes we have to side with something, and people may legitimately disagree on what is the lesser evil.
I think Catholics have different “default” inclinations. My “default” inclination is, in fact, to err on the side of the Right when such a compromise much be made. Many of my (Catholic) friends actually have a “default” that is very much Liberal.
We have “met in the middle,” or perhaps “middle” is not the best way to describe it (because the position we ultimately hold is not so much moderate or centrism, as an attempt to always stay “transcendent” or “above” politics, yet not in an escapist sense, etc). But still, many debates I get in now are less about what the good looks like, and more about which evil is lesser. Less about the final destination, and more about which direction it makes more sense to arrive at it from.
Some people are “coming from the Right” others are “coming from the Left.” Hopefully we’ll all meet in the “middle” (or whatever you want to call it) but I wouldn’t look down on the authoritarian and repressive tendencies of “coming from the Right” without equal criticism of the tendency towards naivitee (and secularism, atheism, etc) of “coming from the Left.”
It is no better to “sympathize with” Marxism than with Fascism. They’re both bad, but the fact that for most people one or the other is going to tug our heartstrings a little bit more on the level of pure appeal-to-emotion is not something to be making value judgments on. A concern with Equality or Freedom is no more noble a “political” concern than a concern with Order. Both are necessary values, neither should be sacrificed for the other, and having a “default” priority for one or the other (as long as we do eventually reach the correct synthesis) is not better or worse.
What you say is true as far as it goes, but you have shifted the discussion onto political affiliation or leanings—-liberal, conservative, etc.—whereas I am talking about actual regimes. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has never closely identified itself with a left-leaning regime. On the other hand, since the days of the ancien regime in France, the Church has often joined forces with regimes on the right.
On the international scene, there is no real meaning to ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ except ‘Communist or closely linked to the Communists’ and ‘opposed to Communists’. Given the obvious impossibility of the Church supporting a typical Communist regime, and given the fact that most active support of the regimes in question was due to support of them before they were in power, A Sinner is surely right that the resolution is equivalent to saying that the Church should not associate itself with any political party or movement, right or left, in power or out of power.
I think the idea is generally right, but (1) I don’t think it’s at all easy to do, since clearly the Church sometimes has to oppose certain ideas, and this will often lead to everyone associating the Church with the opposition group whether Catholics will or nill; and (2) it isn’t clear to me that we can regard this as a universal principle rather than a defeasible guideline.
You are creating a false dichotomy: there are many, many shades of gray in the political spectrum, and to reduce it to communist/non-communist is to fall into a trap that both the Church and the United States government have made repeatedly: supporting rightwing authoritarian regimes and turning a blind eye to their abuses because they are “anti-communist”. Of course, in many cases, “communist” really meant those who stood up for the rights of the poor and working class, irrespective of their actual political ideology.
I agree that there are things that the Church has to oppose, but I strongly disagree that these are all on the left. Evil occurs on the right as well, but sadly, the Church has often not opposed these evils.
The issue immediately at hand is what left and right mean when dealing with international politics, which is the only sense in which it can reasonably be used when we are talking about left-wing regimes and right-wing regimes — which you have explicitly restricted the discussion to. Trying to generalize local national versions of ‘left’ and ‘right’ will inevitably result in mere gibberish; domestic left and right are not constantly defined even crossing the border between two nations as culturally similar as Canada and the U.S. This is because the reference points for the two nations are determined by entirely distinct political systems. Definitely left in Austin will on some issues be definitely right in Montreal and (although at present much less often) definitely right in Austin may be definitely left in Montreal.
So what is necessary is to identify the reference points for regimes. And the overwhelmingly dominant reference point for twentieth century politics is Communism. If you are using any other reference point, you need to define it. For instance, most fascisms (Francoism is usually considered the only major exception) have succeeded by positioning themselves as neither left-wing or right-wing; they attacked both sides and positioned themselves as a moderate position. Well, someone might say, how is it possible that anyone could be taken in by that, since most people today would classify fascism as right-winged? It’s because in both cases left is defined with reference to Communism, and more moderate socialist forms have become more widely acceptable since then, thus shifting the line where ‘center’ is found to the left of fascism on some of the most important issues. At the time, fascism was indeed a middle position, any given fascist leader picking and choosing what he wanted from both Communist and anti-Communist positions — even though ‘moderate’ is probably not the right word for the way in which it was middle.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too: the labels are absolute, but there are no sharp reference points, thus allowing you at one moment to talk about the Church not supporting left-wing regimes and at the next to talk about ‘shades of gray’. But in fact the reverse is true: in the use of left and right in the international context, the reference points are the major extremes, and thus are sharply defined. But the labels are only sharply defined around these extreme poles. Everything else is just left to an extent and right to an extent. Likewise, because domestic right and left are not the same as international right and left, only very loosely calibrated to each other based on the quirks of domestic politics and on the major extremes, what regimes are left-wing and right-wing in the sense that any of us would use it in terms of national politics has very little to do with particular positions taken — that is something that will vary from nation to nation.
Brandon: left does not equal communist, even in international politics and even during the 20th century. There were strong social democratic movements in a number of European countries and even in the US prior to WW I. And I simply cannot fathom how you can refer to facists of any stripe as occupying a “middle ground” between left and right. They are the manifestation of right wing authoritarianism and nationalism.
I think it goes too far to say “the Church has gained nothing from aligning itself with right wing regimes…” During the period of colonization in the Americas, for example, the Church gained substantial military protection and material support for its missions. Leaving aside the issue of whether subjugation and forced baptism of native peoples was a good idea, that is what the Church wanted to accomplish at the time, and the secular authorities delivered.
I’d rather say “the Church has willingly paid far too high a moral price by aligning herself too closely with secular authority.” This would cover association with fascist regimes, and also, for example, with anti-semitic pogroms.
“Leaving aside the issue of whether subjugation and forced baptism of native peoples was a good idea,”
The problem is that I do not think that we can, in all fairness and honestly, leave these aside when considering the relationship between Church and State in the colonial period. By accepting state protection and aligning itself so closely with the forces of colonialism, the Church probably worked against itself. That this is what it wanted at the time should not prevent us from looking back critically.
I stand by what I said: the Church has gained nothing from supporting rightwing regimes. I will gladly expand that statement if you can find an example of our cooperation and support for a left wing regime.
David
As I remember my history – the Republican side came with a pre-war antipathy to the Church and all things Christian, this was much more from the nature of their ideology than anything the Church did or did not do, though chruch actions real imagined or falsified became a justification.. In power they put this hostility into effect. What might have happened it they had been religion neutral I do not have the background to speculate. But it was the policy of the Republicans chose the side the Church ended up on. With 20/20 hind sight we can say the the Church could have done better, but really would we have been any better at seeing the opportunities if we were there?
I think in many of the cases you are thinking about this was the case from the days of the ancien regime in France
Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings
Hank,
while your version has been the dominant narrative since the civil war, 30 years of scholarship (since the end of the Franco regime) has pointed out the significant flaws in this narrative. First, there was no single “Republican” ideology: they were a popular front consisting of social democrats, liberal democrats, socialists, anarchists, Basque and Catalan nationalists and even a few communists. (In the last assembly before the start of the civil war they had perhaps 1-2 seats.) Yes, the vast majority of the anarchists and many of the socialists had antipathy towards the Church and Christianity in general, but the legislative actions prior to 1936 were quite modest. At the beginning of the Civil War there were horrific atrocities—a black mark against the Republic. But it is also worth remembering that there were Catholics in the government, and the Church in the Basque country was solidly behind the Republic; many units of Catholic troops from the Basque country fought for the Republic, with Catholic chaplains in tow.
Further, remember that the Civil War started as a military coup against the legitimately elected Republican government. The Church had many options: support the republic, take a neutral stance and call for a peaceful resolution, etc. Instead, it wholeheartedly supported the military coup, declaring it a crusade and putting the resources of the Church at the disposal of the fascists to find “hidden” reds. For example, in many villages, a suspected “communist” (usually a labor organizer or someone considered “uppity” by the factory owners or landowners) was required to prove that he had attended church regularly to avoid arrest and execution. Parish priests were given the power of life and death by whether they issued certificates attesting to mass attendance. They were instructed by their bishops to withhold such certificates in most cases.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but looking back the historical record gives ample evidence that there were Catholic laity, priests and even a few bishops, even after the Civil War started, who wanted to choose a different path. Further, had the Church not been so wedded to the established order in the years prior to the Civil War, it would have been able to be a peacemaker and exercise its prophetic role in defense of the poor and marginalized. In all the examples I can think of, this is what has happened: the Church by its support for the (rightwing) status quo, alienated the people it had a duty to serve.
David,
I know much less than you do about the Spanish Civil War, so I defer to you about it all. My impression from my limited knowledge of the War is that the Church suffered a lot of abuse from the Republicans. But I don’t doubt that the Catholic Church made significant mistakes pre-Civil War about who they aligned with, or how it used (or abused) the power and riches it had accrued, or how it treated (or mistreated) the people who needed help thereby alienating them, so I pretty much agree with your last paragraph about the Church’s lost opportunity to serve and be a peacemaker.
I think I’ve mentioned this move before on VN, but have you seen “There Be Dragons”? As I said, I’ve got very limited knowledge of the War, but I thought it did a good job of taking the middle between the two sides that had pros and cons, and showing the proper response in the war — that of seeking true peace. And I thought it was an entertaining and thoughtful story. I recommend it and I’d be interested in hearing what you think of it.
You have mentioned “there be dragons” before, and it is on my ever increasing list of films to watch. Also, your summary above is very apt and pretty close to my position: how is it that we keep agreeing on things? :-)
Because my knowledge of the Spanish Civil War is so small, There Be Dragons helped give me a more nuanced understanding of the causes of the War. And recently, I’ve come to this thought: consider some historical instances where the Catholic Church was a significant and important part of a society’s life and culture, and then is quickly rejected or persecuted by portions of that society. (I think examples are the Spanish Civil War, the rejection of the Church and embrace of secularism during the French Revolution, and the rejection of the Church that has recently happened in Quebec.) On the surface, these rapid rejections of the Church seem bizarre and uncharacteristic of the “Catholic culture” that was found in France or Quebec or Spain before the rejections, as if they came out of left field all of a sudden. And on the surface, one might think that these instances are simply instances of the Church suffering as a victim. But I think that’s an inaccurate way of thinking about these. Instead, I wonder whether it is more accurate to think that they are instances when the Church brought the suffering down upon itself, where the Church was a cause (and maybe even the primary and most significant cause) of the persecution and rejection-of-faith that followed. It’s a cautionary tale against the Church becoming bloated with worldly concerns and power, and forgetting Her mission to serve.
Amen!!!!
I am glad you bring this topic up. What is interesting is that some of the people who helped wed American Catholicism to the religious right (William F. Buckley, L. Brent Bozell, Warren Carroll, to name a few), were unapologetic Franco sympathizers, something that helped me lose my faith. And there are still people who will defend the Nationalist’s actions to this day:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7999
David, what do you think of this article? And can you please tell me why the Church, faced with Stalin-allied persecutors vs. a Hitler and Mussolini-allied so-called saviors, chose to ally with the so-called saviors? If I had to choose between Stalin and Hitler, I’d definitely choose Stalin! And, what about the Reichskonkordat of 1933 (I’m giving the 1929 Lateran treaty a pass. Even G.K. Chesterton was smitten with Mussolini until just before his death.)?
This article was awful: a misreading of history through a narrow ideological lens.
But the Republic was allied with Stalin later in the war, so it was possible that had the Republic won, Spain would end up Communist. However, I think that was definitely better than a “Catholic” Spain for 36, only for it to lose its faith.
Yes, in this regard it is worth comparing the Church in Poland after 40 years of communist rule to the Church in Spain after 40 years of Franco.
Which brings us back to my originial question. Why did the Church in Spain decide to ally with an ally of Hitler than an ally of Stalin in the Spanish Civil War. If World War II taught us anything, Stalin > Hitler (not to whitewash Stalin, but you get the point).
I find it hard to accept that Stalin was “better” than Hitler in any meaningful way: if you put them both in a barrel and rolled it downhill, there would always be a genocidal, totalitarian dictator on top. In Spain, I believe that the ultimate problem is that the Church, having aligned itself with the status quo to the point that it had alienated large chunks of the poor and working class, accepted the fallacious argument that the Fascists were going to “defend” the Church.
I understand that. But why didn’t the Church look at the fact that the Nationalists were allied with Hitler when they thought that the Nationalists were going to “defend” the Church? That was enough sign for me that that “defense” was false.
Tunnel vision. The Church was so focused on the threat of communism that it did not realize that fascism was an equally grave threat.
As well as 20/20 hindsight, of course! (I think Dietrich Von Hildebrand was the one the few in the Church who saw fascism for what it was when it was introduced)
There was also a “Third Way” movement in France in the late 30′s that argued that the Church should not side with either the Republicans or Nationalists, but should serve as a mediator between the two. They too were definitely suspicious of the fascists. It was centered on Jaques Maritain if I remember correctly.
Yeah, had Pius XI did the same with Spain than what he did with Mexico (and not have close correspondence with Franco) Spain would have gotten quite similar results, IMO. The Spanish Republic was definitely more closer to the 1920s PRI than Stalinist Communist Regime.
David–
I have a hard time accepting your narrative. From what I have read (Beevoir’s “The Fight for Spain” primarily, but bits of other articles) it would seem that the Second Republic was pretty much failed from the begining.You seem to create a narrative comparing the violence of the Franco forces with the violence of the Spanish Republic. However, it seems like the greatest problem facing the Second Republic was its disinterest in protecting its citizens from non-state left wing violence.
Left wing governments (largely lead by Azana) appear to have been disinterested in protecting those outside the Republican political movement. This occurred as early as 1931 when police forces were not sent out to stop the attack on convents because the prime minister thought they weren’t worth a single republican life. When the same prime minister came to power a second time he released a number of socialist revolutionaries. He also appeared to be disinterested in the fact that a political figure and member of their legislature (Calvo Sotelo) was assasinated by the police who had pretextually arrested him.
A central part of your argument seems to be that the rising was against a legitimate government. However, it seems apparant that the Republic (when controlled by left wing elements) gave cover and protection to left wing revolutionaries. I don’t think legitimacy is purely a procedural matter, and after Sotelo’s murder it seems unlikely that the Republic had it. This doesn’t, of course, excuse the actions of various Catholic leaders. Neither does it show that the Church gained much from association with Franco.
Mike,
you are correct that a singular failing of the Republic was its unwillingness to act against non-state violence by its supporters. However, in the period of 31-36 there was plenty of non-state violence by the right as well: it was an ugly period. And, to its credit, the left allowed a peaceful transition of power to a rightwing government during this period.
The biggest difference, in my mind, between the Republicans and the Nationalists during the Civil War was the wholesale use of state sponsored violence—mass arrests and executions—by the nationalists. And the point I was making was that the Church not only did not criticize or attempt to temper this, but actively supported it.
Yes, legitimacy is more than procedural, but it is worth noting that even after the outbreak of the Civil War, even the Vatican recognized the Republic as the legitimate government of Spain. It is not clear to me when it change course, but it was not immediate.
And again, let me come back to my central point: supporting Franco hurt the Spanish church badly, and I think it is key to understanding the poor shape that it finds itself in.
Unlike Spain, where the Church picked Fascism over democracy, in Germany, to the Church in Germany’s eternal credit, the Weimer period had largely a government that was an alliance of Catholics, Socialists and Liberals, against the totalitarians of the right and left (Nazis and the KPD). It is one of the reason the Church in post-war Germany was a respected social institution. It is most unfortunate the Spanish Church took a different route.
Kurt, a very interesting example, though after the rise of Hitler, the Church did not push back as much as it could have. I think it put too much faith in the Concordat it negotiated with the nazis.
David,
Yes, but let’s remember that the Concordat was between the Reich and the Holy See, not the Church in Germany. It also had been largely negotiated under the previous government. It gets unmerited attention I think while what is ignored is the efforts of German Catholics and the Catholic Center Party to preserve Weimer democracy by their alliance with the Socialists and the Liberals. (Despite the Socialist support at the time for a liberalization of Germany’s abortion law and as well as the fact that there was just as much violence by private milita in Weimer Germany as Republican Spain).
Had only the conservatives joined with the Socialists and Catholics, Hilter could have been blocked from seizing power.
Once democracy is lost, I’m relucant to critize, because it is not easy to know what is to be done.
Fair enough: this is something I should read more about. By chance, do you know how the Church stood in relation to the Popular Front in France in 1936?
My understanding is that Catholics split almost to a person along the same lines as they did on the Dreyfus affair (putting the great majority of Catholics on the Right). There were two small Christian Democratic movements, the Young Republicans, who I believe supported the Popular Front, and the Parti démocrate populaire, which was more centerist.
The Catholic Right at this stage was, of course, barely coming to terms with democracy and popular elections.