Vatican II as the Church's response to fascism?

[DL82]

It strikes me as possible that one of the reasons for so much confusion about Vatican II, both from liberal and Traditional circles, is the lack of a clear historical framework for understanding it. All Ecumenical Councils are called in response to heresy: the Fourth Lateran Council in response to the Cathars, Trent in response to Protestantism, Vatican I to Modernism. It would be impossible to understand the Council of Trent without understanding what Luther and Calvin were saying against it. Vatican II doesn't identify a heresy by name, and so some people in Britain and America think it was a response to the 'sexual revolution' going on in the West.

Looking at the Church more broadly in the 1960s, however, it occurs to me that a more appropriate context would be to frame Vatican II as a response to fascism: Franco was still in power in Spain, Oliveira in Portugal, Batista in Cuba, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, etc.

In that light, the Church's decree on religious freedom is a reaction against the too close collusion between Church and totalitarian state: states like Francos Spain and Mussolini's Italy had claimed to offer freedom to the 'true' Church, but this gave the state the power to decide who could speak for Catholic Truth. The only way to give the Church a true freedom was to allow people the freedom to make prophetic statements, even when these challenge state or clerical power. Far from moral indifference, this is merely a restatement of the Church's role in civil society in all periods.

In the same way, the Council's statements on the lay vocation can be understood as a rejection of clerical fascism. Simply exempting the clergy from service in a totalitarian military does not constitute freedom of conscience, because the laity are also called to holiness, and that holiness consists in the same charity which is holiness for the clergy, not merely in unquestioning obedience. In that way, the call to the laity is not a denigration of the traditional role of the priesthood, but a Christian response to the kind of pessimism common to communist and fascist regimes, of reducing the working class to a pliable, blissfully ignorant mass.

I wonder if viewing the documents of Vatican II in this light, as a response to an error which had led to too close cooperation between Church and totalitarian regimes, rather than as speaking to the 'sexually liberated' West or challenging the traditional formulations of the Church, would help to create some sense of perspective, in particular to bring together agreement between liberals and Traditionalists.

[domNoah]

I have read a fair amount on Vatican II and I have never heard that Vatican II was in response to fascism. Could you provide some type of source from any of the council Fathers that indicated that what was in their hearts and mind?

[Rich C]

Fascism? If Vatican II was about a political movement it should have been Communism. I understand that a number of people at the time thought it would address that, but it didn't.

I have also heard people say it was partly a reaction to WWII. As a kind of spiritual imitation of the "Marshall Plan" which rebuilt Europe physically, Vatican II was supposed to rebuild Europe spiritually.

I don't really have an opinion on these things, myself.

[Rich C]

Furthermore, re-reading your post, I believe the Church had friendly relations with most or all of those facists. Not ideal, but better than the atheistic Communists that replaced some, or the anti-family socialists that replaced others.

[yukonbrad]

Given that Vatican II happened some two decades after the end of World War II and the defeat of Fascism (Germany, Italy, Japan), I find it difficult to make the connection.

[M-Dent]

Originally Posted by DL82

Looking at the Church more broadly in the 1960s, however, it occurs to me that a more appropriate context would be to frame Vatican II as a response to fascism: Franco was still in power in Spain, Oliveira in Portugal, Batista in Cuba, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, etc..

I have read nothing in the documents of the Council to support this idea. I haven't even heard of any schemas or preparatory work that would support your idea the Council was a response to fascism?

Pope John XXIII's opening speech (October 11, 1962) regarding the decision of calling the Council.

As regards the immediate cause for this great event, which gathers you here together at Our bidding, it is sufficient for Us to put on record once more something which, though trifling in itself, made a deep impression on Us personally. The decision to hold an ecumenical council came to Us in the first instance in a sudden flash of inspiration. We communicated this decision, without elaboration, to the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959, the feast of St. Paul's Conversion, in his patriarchal basilica in the Ostien Way. 4 The response was immediate. It was as though some ray of supernatural light had entered the minds of all present: it was reflected in their faces; it shone from their eyes. At once the world was swept by a wave of enthusiasm, and men everywhere began to wait eagerly for the celebration of this Council

The Pope shared - what might be considered one pastoral motivation he hoped for the Council - by promoting a "medicine of mercy rather than that of severity," in suppressing errors. But that's quite different than a response to fascism.

Another interesting note is Cardinal Ratzinger's historical understanding.

Just after the First World War, Romano Guardini coined an expression that quickly became a slogan for German Catholics: "An event of enormous importance is taking place: the Church is awakening within souls". The result of this awakening was ultimately the Second Vatican Council. Through its various documents it expressed and made part of the patrimony of the whole Church something that, during four decades full of ferment and hope (1920 to 1960), had been maturing in knowledge gained through faith. To understand Vatican II one must look back on this period and seek to discern, at least in outline, the currents and tendencies that came together in the Council. I will present the ideas that came to the fore during this period and then describe the fundamental elements of the Council's teaching on the Church.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCV2.HTM

[Aelred Minor]

I don't think it was specifically or primarily a response to fascsim, but certainly the experience of Mussolini would have still been fresh in the minds of the Italian bishops and the Europeans in general, and Franco was still in power. Western fascism would have been viewed as very much a part of the modern world at the time of the Council, and I suspect it would have been one influence on the thinking of the Council Fathers on issues like religious liberty.

[andrewstx]

I was very young at the time of the council, so I have no memories of it. But I have read about Italian history of the times and it seems like Italy in the 50s and 60s was in uproar and competition between facistsand communists with the middle being weak.

It think it possible that the council Fathers may well had both on their minds Facism is on the xtreme right, while Communism is on the extreme left, I think both are terrible.

[Chatter163]

Vatican I was not so much about a response to modernism--whose worst effects still lay ahead at the time--but to the changes in the European political landscape. Vatican II was really more of a response to modernism--not such much to refute its tenets, per se, but modify how the Church was ministering to a world that had become enmeshed in it.

BTW. Batista was already out of power when was Vatican II was convoked, replaced by the communist Castro. At the time of the council, communism was perceived as a far greater threat to the faith.

[M-Dent]

Originally Posted by Chatter163

Vatican II was really more of a response to modernism--not such much to refute its tenets, per se, but modify how the Church was ministering to a world that had become enmeshed in it.

I'm certain the Ecumenical Council members were quite aware of the great impact Enlightenment philosophies had on many nations in the west. And the errors of modernism and positivism.

Imo, Dignitatis Humanae is a good example of trying to correct certain errors of the Enlightenment. It also may be a fair example of what Pope John XXIII called “aggiornamento“ (renew/revitalize). The document begins noting a growing sense of “human dignity” and “rights.” It goes on to explain the correct way to understand this.

Or as Pope Benedict XVI notes,

Aware of the developments in culture and society, the Second Vatican Council proposed a renewed anthropological foundation to religious freedom. The Council Fathers stated that all people are “impelled by nature and also bound by our moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2). The truth sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32), and it is this same truth that must be sought and assumed freely. The Council was careful to clarify that this freedom is a right which each person enjoys naturally and which therefore ought also to be protected and fostered by civil law.

Of course, every state has a sovereign right to promulgate its own legislation and will express different attitudes to religion in law. So it is that there are some states which allow broad religious freedom in our understanding of the term, while others restrict it for a variety of reasons, including mistrust for religion itself. The Holy See continues to appeal for the recognition of the fundamental human right to religious freedom on the part of all states, and calls on them to respect, and if need be protect, religious minorities who, though bound by a different faith from the majority around them, aspire to live with their fellow citizens peacefully and to participate fully in the civil and political life of the nation, to the benefit of all.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...iences_en.html

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by DL82

It strikes me as possible that one of the reasons for so much confusion about Vatican II, both from liberal and Traditional circles, is the lack of a clear historical framework for understanding it. All Ecumenical Councils are called in response to heresy: the Fourth Lateran Council in response to the Cathars, Trent in response to Protestantism, Vatican I to Modernism. It would be impossible to understand the Council of Trent without understanding what Luther and Calvin were saying against it. Vatican II doesn't identify a heresy by name, and so some people in Britain and America think it was a response to the 'sexual revolution' going on in the West.

Looking at the Church more broadly in the 1960s, however, it occurs to me that a more appropriate context would be to frame Vatican II as a response to fascism: Franco was still in power in Spain, Oliveira in Portugal, Batista in Cuba, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, etc.

In that light, the Church's decree on religious freedom is a reaction against the too close collusion between Church and totalitarian state: states like Francos Spain and Mussolini's Italy had claimed to offer freedom to the 'true' Church, but this gave the state the power to decide who could speak for Catholic Truth. The only way to give the Church a true freedom was to allow people the freedom to make prophetic statements, even when these challenge state or clerical power. Far from moral indifference, this is merely a restatement of the Church's role in civil society in all periods.

In the same way, the Council's statements on the lay vocation can be understood as a rejection of clerical fascism. Simply exempting the clergy from service in a totalitarian military does not constitute freedom of conscience, because the laity are also called to holiness, and that holiness consists in the same charity which is holiness for the clergy, not merely in unquestioning obedience. In that way, the call to the laity is not a denigration of the traditional role of the priesthood, but a Christian response to the kind of pessimism common to communist and fascist regimes, of reducing the working class to a pliable, blissfully ignorant mass.

I wonder if viewing the documents of Vatican II in this light, as a response to an error which had led to too close cooperation between Church and totalitarian regimes, rather than as speaking to the 'sexually liberated' West or challenging the traditional formulations of the Church, would help to create some sense of perspective, in particular to bring together agreement between liberals and Traditionalists.

Vatican II, which began in 1962, was explained by Pope John XXIII is his opening speech:

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm


The goal of the Second Vatican Council was not to teach new truths but to teach them anew. During the time of its preparation, the threat of Communism was on the minds of everyone. In 1959, both the Russians and Americans deployed nuclear missiles. In 1962, the year the Council started, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. The Russians had placed Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles on the island of Cuba. World War III was averted by the deft management of the situation by President John F. Kennedy and his aide and Attorney General, Robert Kennedy.

Fascism, as such, was not the issue. In 1933, a Concordat was signed between the Hitler government and the Vatican, guaranteeing the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany. Hitler's anti-Communist stance was viewed favorably (Hitler always used the term Bolshevism). The Vatican has always spoken out against any government that treated people unjustly and has always advocated peace as opposed to war.

You would have to provide examples of collusion between the Vatican in recent times. To the degree that it cooperated at all with fascist and totalitarian governments was from the standpoint of encouraging those governments to treat their people in a just and humane way.

Vatican II did call on the laity to become more actively involved in carrying out the work of the Church, such as evangelization.

There is nothing complicated about the confusion surrounding Vatican II. First, many critics say the documents are confusing. That is not the case. Second, it is pointed out that certain changes occurred after Vatican II. All people need to know is that none of the changes were even suggested by Vatican II:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

There have always been dissidents in the Church, but they came out in full force in the late 1960s and the 1970s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...563939764.html


These people helped to spread general confusion among Catholics. I lived through the time period and Catholics were more of a cohesive community across the country and Christianity was generally well respected by the media and the Federal government. We trusted everyone more, until the wolves appeared and the flock began to involve itself in the so-called Sexual Revolution which was a direct response to the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI which was published in 1968. After that, the five year plan began: contraception, teaching no respect for any authority, including the Church, the promotion of illegal drugs and pornography. And finally, legalized abortion in 1973. I remember being stunned to hear the news, but we were lied to:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/re...ionist-speaks/

If religion had been "the opiate of the masses, porn became the substitute, and sex without marriage.



May God have mercy,
Ed