That’s a really unconvincing response. You need to debate anyone whose views you wish people not to believe. That is to say, if I find author X making a plausible point, you need to refute it or accept that I may be convinced by author X. When people with inquiring minds are repeatedly told not to ask questions, not to read certain sources, not even to bother trying to refute particular points, the cumulative, inductive conclusion they will most likely come to eventually is that the faith on behalf of which people are giving them this silly advice is probably indefensible.
So every time you say something of the kind you said above, you are contributing to undermining the Catholic faith in the minds of others. You are guilty of giving scandal–of putting a stumbling block before your weaker brothers and sisters.
The Church does not oppose labor, the Church has been the best friend the working class has ever had.
How was this shown, specifically, in 1930s Spain?
The Church did not put or keep Francisco Franco, or any other dictator, in power.
But is it not true that the Spanish bishops pretty uniformly supported him and gave the Spanish people the impression that the Church, and hence God, was on his side? And isn’t it true that the Vatican never told the Spanish bishops that they were wrong for so doing?
Doesn’t this add up to the Church having something to do with his coming to power and remaining in power?
One of the things that I find most disturbing about Catholicism, and that has made it most difficult for me to accept Catholicism, is the way Catholics talk as if any time the institutional Church does something clearly bad it suddenly becomes, for the purposes of that act, a gaggle of separate individuals.
Considering the Communist massacres of Catholics, it could hardly be surprising that some or many Spanish Catholics favored the Nationalist side.
This is a typical partisan tactic: take one side’s atrocities, in isolation, and speak as if they were just unmotivated acts of depravity; then claim that your own side’s atrocities, if they existed at all, were just sporadic and understandable responses to the evil of the other side. The next step, of course, is to accuse the person who points out this inconsistency of “blaming the victim.”
As far as I can see, both sides in the Spanish Civil War were pretty awful. I think that from a moral point of view it’s hard to choose between them. And yet some conservative Catholics (including many people living at the time whom I respect, such as Tolkien, and a few folks still today) seem to portray the nationalist side as the good side just because the other side was viciously anti-Catholic.
The Christian ethic of sparing the innocent, even in wartime, was rejected by the modern atheistic dictators. This is the fault of atheism, not the Church.
But Franco wasn’t an atheist, or even a lapsed Catholic with bizarre and confused religious opinions (like Hitler, who wasn’t exactly an atheist either but certainly wasn’t a practicing Catholic or any kind of orthodox Christian). He was a self-proclaimed loyal son of the Church. His followers believed themselves to be good Catholics. And they disregarded the Christian ethic of sparing the innocent just as much as their opponents did, from all I’ve heard. When did the Church speak out about this? (This is a genuine question–I know that secular historians do slant things, and I’m quite willing to be shown evidence that the Church did speak out on Franco’s atrocities.)
Franco was no democrat but it is worth noting that he could have been a great help to Hitler and Mussolini in WWII by seizing the British base at Gibralter but refused to do so.
I can’t see that this is remotely relevant to the present discussion.