In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic parties tend to be left-leaning and to some degree influenced by liberation theology. These generalizations, however, must be nuanced by the consideration that Christian democracy does not fit precisely into the usual categories of political thought, but rather includes elements common to several other political ideologies, including conservatism, liberalism, and social democracy.
Wikipedia points to the origins of Christian democracy going back to the French Revolution.
In 18th-century France, the vast majority of the population adhered to the Catholic Church as Catholicism had been since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 the only religion officially allowed in the kingdom. Nonetheless, minorities of French Protestants (mostly Huguenots & German Lutherans in Alsace) and Jews still lived in France at the beginning of the Revolution. The Edict of Versailles, commonly known as the Edict of Tolerance, had been signed by Louis XVI on 7 November 1787 and had given non-Catholics in France the right to openly practice their religions as well as legal and civil status, which included the right to contract marriages without having to convert to the Catholic faith. At the same time, libertine thinkers popularized atheism and anti-clericalism.
The Ancien Régime institutionalised the authority of the clergy in its status as the First Estate of the realm. As the largest landowner in the country, the Catholic Church controlled properties which provided massive revenues from its tenants; the Church also had an enormous income from the collection of tithes. Since the Church kept the registry of births, deaths, and marriages and was the only institution that provided hospitals and education in some parts of the country, it influenced all citizens.
The event that launched the Revolution was the abolition of the privileges of the First and Second Estate on the night of 4 August 1789. In particular, it abolished the tithes gathered by the Catholic clergy. The State cancelled the taxing power of the Church. The issue of church property became central to the policies of the new revolutionary government. Declaring that all church property in France belonged to the nation, confiscations were ordered and church properties were sold at public auction. In July 1790, the National Constituent Assembly published the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that stripped clerics of their special rights — the clergy were to be made employees of the state, elected by their parish or bishopric, and the number of bishoprics was to be reduced — and required all priests and bishops to swear an oath of fidelity to the new order or face dismissal, deportation or death.
French priests had to receive Papal approval to sign such an oath, and Pius VI spent almost eight months deliberating on the issue. On 13 April 1791, the Pope denounced the Constitution, resulting in a split in the French Catholic church. Over fifty percent became abjuring priests ("jurors"), also known as "constitutional clergy", and nonjuring priests as "refractory clergy".
In September 1792, the Legislative Assembly legalized divorce, contrary to Catholic doctrine. At the same time, the State took control of the birth, death, and marriage registers away from the Church. An ever-increasing view that the Church was a counter-revolutionary force exacerbated the social and economic grievances and violence erupted in towns and cities across France.
In Paris, over a forty-eight-hour period beginning on 2 September 1792, as the Legislative Assembly (successor to the National Constituent Assembly) dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres.
Priests were among those drowned in mass executions (noyades) for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyons, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d'Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.
Anti-church laws were passed by the Legislative Assembly and its successor, the National Convention, as well as by département councils throughout the country. Many of the acts of dechristianization in 1793 were motivated by the seizure of church gold and silver to finance the war effort. In November 1793, the département council of Indre-et-Loire abolished the word dimanche (English: Sunday). The Gregorian calendar, an instrument decreed by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, was replaced by the French Republican Calendar which abolished the sabbath, saints' days and any references to the Church. The seven-day week became ten days instead. It soon became clear, however, that nine consecutive days of work were too much, and that international relations could not be carried out without reverting to the Gregorian system, which was still in use everywhere outside of France. Consequently, the Gregorian Calendar was reimplemented in 1795.
Anti-clerical parades were held, and the Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Gobel, was forced to resign his duties and made to replace his mitre with the red "Cap of Liberty." Street and place names with any sort of religious connotation were changed, such as the town of St. Tropez, which became Héraclée. Religious holidays were banned and replaced with holidays to celebrate the harvest and other non-religious symbols. Many churches were converted into "temples of reason," in which Deistic services were held. Local people often resisted this dechristianisation and forced members of the clergy who had resigned to conduct Mass again. Maximilien Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety denounced the dechristianizers as foreign enemies of the Revolution, and established their own new religion.
This Cult of the Supreme Being, without the superstitions of Catholicism, supplanted both Catholicism and the rival Cult of Reason. Both new religions were short-lived. Just six weeks before his arrest, on 8 June 1794 the still-powerful Robespierre personally led a vast procession through Paris to the Tuileries garden in a ceremony to inaugurate the new faith. His execution occurred shortly afterward, on 28 July 1794.
By early 1795 a return to some form of religion-based faith was beginning to take shape and a law passed on 21 February 1795 legalized public worship, albeit with strict limitations. The ringing of church bells, religious processions and displays of the Christian cross were still forbidden.
As late as 1799, priests were still being imprisoned or deported to penal colonies. Persecution only worsened after the French army led by General Louis Alexandre Berthier captured Rome in early 1798, declared a new Roman Republic, and imprisoned Pope Pius VI, who would die in captivity in Valence, France in August 1799. Ultimately, with Napoleon now in ascendancy in France, year-long negotiations between government officials and the new Pope Pius VII led to the Concordat of 1801, formally ending the dechristianization period and establishing the rules for a relationship between the Roman Church and the French State.
Victims of the Reign of Terror totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes. Of these social groupings, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church suffered proportionately the greatest loss.
Anti-church laws were passed by the Legislative Assembly and its successor, the National Convention, as well as by département councils throughout the country. The Concordat of 1801 endured for more than a century until it was abrogated by the government of the Third Republic, which established a policy of laïcité on 11 December 1905.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 proclaimed freedom of religion across France in these terms :
Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.
Article X - No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.
On October 10, 1789, the National Constituent Assembly seized the properties and land held by the Catholic Church and decided to sell them as assignats.
On July 12, 1790, the assembly passed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that subordinated the Roman Catholic Church in France to the French government. It was never accepted by the Pope and other high-ranking clergy in Rome.
The rise of liberalism
After the decades following the French revolution, the Catholic church saw the rise of liberalism as a threat to catholic values. The rise of capitalism and the resulting industrialization and urbanization of society were seen to be destroying the traditional communal and family life. According to the catholic church liberal economics promoted selfishness and materialism with the liberal emphasis on individualism, tolerance, and free expression enabled all kinds of self-indulgence and permissiveness to thrive.
Consequently for much of the 19th century the Catholic church was hostile to democracy and liberalism, later however many political catholic movements were formed in European countries advocating reconciling Catholicism with liberalism if not democracy. From about the 1870s political Catholicism emerged based on the idea that it was to the Church's advantage to participate in the modern political process, and it became a significant force in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria. These catholic political movements tended to have many similar policies of opposition to liberal secularism, civil marriage and state control of education. They were against the common view across all forms of liberalism that church and state must be separated, consequently they were also closely connected to the church and confined to the faithful. There was no implied commitment to democracy, these movements merely made use of the political system to the advantage of what they believed to be was right with their ideal goal being the church having a privileged position in the state with it being able to influence policy.
Largely as a result of the papal encyclical Rerum novarum of Pope Leo XIII, in which the Vatican recognized workers' misery and agreed that something should be done about it, in reaction to the rise of the socialist and trade union movements.
Rerum novarum
Rerum novarum (a direct translation of the Latin meaning is "of the new things"), or Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour, is an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on 15 May 1891. It was an open letter, passed to all Catholic Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and bishops, that addressed the condition of the working classes.
It discussed the relationships and mutual duties between labour and capital, as well as government and its citizens.
Of primary concern was the need for some amelioration of:
"The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class."
It supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected socialism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property.
Rerum Novarum is considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching.
The opening words in Latin are "Rerum novarum semel excitata cupidine", which in the official English translation is rendered "the spirit of revolutionary change". Rerum novarum literally means "new things" but idiomatically has meant "political innovations" or "revolution" since at least the days of Cicero. John Molony argues that the word "revolution" is misleading in the context, and that a more appropriate rendering of the Latin would be "the burning desire for change".
The first draft and content of the encyclical was written by Tommaso Maria Zigliara, professor from 1870 to 1879 at the College of Saint Thomas, the future Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum. Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler and Cardinal Henry Edward Manning were also influential in its composition.
Rerum novarum is subtitled "On the Conditions of Labour". In this document, Pope Leo XIII articulated the Catholic Church's response to the social conflict that had risen in the wake of capitalism and industrialization and that had led to the rise of socialism and communism as ideologies.
The Pope declared that the role of the State is to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class harmony (rather than class conflict). He restated the Church's long-standing teaching regarding the crucial importance of private property rights, but recognized, in one of the best-known passages of the encyclical, that the free operation of market forces must be tempered by moral considerations:
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.Rerum novarum is remarkable for its vivid depiction of the plight of the nineteenth-century urban poor and for its condemnation of unrestricted capitalism. Among the remedies it prescribed were the formation of trade unions and the introduction of collective bargaining, particularly as an alternative to state intervention.
Although the Encyclical follows the lines of the traditional teaching concerning the rights and duties of property and the relations of employer and employee, it applies the old doctrines specifically to modern conditions. Leo first quotes Thomas Aquinas in affirming that private property is a fundamental principle of natural law. He then quotes Gregory the Great regarding its proper use:
"He that hath a talent, let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor."Liberalism also affirms the right to private property, but socialism and communism do not.
Rerum novarum also recognized that the poor have a special status in consideration of social issues: the modern Catholic principle of the
"preferential option for the poor"and the notion that God is on the side of the poor were expressed in this document.
Rights and duties
As a framework for building social harmony, the pope proposed the idea of rights and duties. For example, workers have rights to a fair wage and reasonable working conditions, but they also have duties to their employers; likewise employers have rights and also have duties to their workers.
The Church by reminding workers and employers of their rights and duties can help to form and activate people's conscience. However, the pope also recommended that civil authorities take a role in protecting workers' rights and in keeping the peace. The law should intervene no further than is necessary to stop abuses. In many cases, governments had acted solely to support the interests of businesses, while suppressing workers attempting to organize unions to achieve better working conditions.
Leo states that,
"...according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honourable livelihood."He maintains that a person's dignity derives from the fact that he/she is created in the image of God and endowed with free will and an immortal soul.
The pope specifically mentioned work in the mines, and outdoor work in certain seasons, as dangerous to health and requiring additional protections.
He condemned the use of child labour as interfering with education and the development of children.
Fair wages are defined in Rerum novarum as at least a living wage, but Leo recommended paying more than that: enough to support the worker, his wife and family, with a little savings left over so that the worker can improve his condition over time. He also preferred that women work at home.
The common good
Without recommending one form of government over another, Leo put forth some principles for the appropriate role of the State in good government. The primary purpose of a State is to provide for the common good. All people have equal dignity regardless of social class, and a good government protects the rights and cares for the needs of all its members, both rich and poor. Leo also pointed out that everyone is in some way a contributor to the common good and everyone's contribution is important.
Pope Leo XIII points out that no one should be forced to share his goods, as that would be stealing, however, when one is blessed with material wealth, one should use this to benefit as many others as possible.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists three principal aspects of the common good:
1) respect for the human person and his rights;
2) social well-being and development; and
3) peace, which is "the stability and security of a just order."
Pope Leo strongly criticized socialism in that it seeks to replace the rights and duties of parents, families and communities with the supervision of the state. The civil government should not intrude into and exercise control over the family, the basic building block of society. However, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress due to illness, injury, or natural disaster it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. By the same token, if within a household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due. They should only intervene when a family or community is unable or unwilling to fulfill their rights and duties in regard to its members.
Private property
Rerum novarum strongly asserts the right to own private property, including land, as a principle of natural law.
Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."The right to own property does not mean absolute freedom in the use of money, but carries responsibilities with it. Leo encouraged the wealthy to meet their own needs, the needs of their families, and to maintain a "becoming" standard of living. But they have a responsibility to give alms from what is left over. This is not a law, but a moral obligation.
Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others.
The dignity of the poor and working classes
Leo emphasized the dignity of the poor and working classes.
As for those who possess not the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God's sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labor.This principle of the preferential option for the poor was developed more fully in writings of later popes.
God Himself seems to incline rather to those who suffer misfortune; for Jesus Christ calls the poor "blessed"; (Matt.5:3) He lovingly invites those in labor and grief to come to Him for solace; (Matt. 11:28) and He displays the tenderest charity toward the lowly and the oppressed.
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
Civil society
Leo distinguished the larger, civil society (also called the commonwealth, or public society), and smaller, private societies which exist within it. The civil society exists to protect the common good and preserve the rights of all equally. Private societies are diverse and exist for various purposes within the civil society. Trade unions are one type of private society, and a special focus of this encyclical: "The most important of all are workingmen's unions, for these virtually include all the rest. ... it were greatly to be desired that they should become more numerous and more efficient." Other examples of private societies are families, business partnerships, and religious orders.
The rights of private societies
Leo strongly supported the right of private societies to exist and self-regulate:
Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a "society" of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them....Leo supported unions, yet opposed at least some parts of the then emerging labour movement. He urged workers, if their union seemed on the wrong track, to form alternative associations.
The State should watch over these societies of citizens banded together in accordance with their rights, but it should not thrust itself into their peculiar concerns and their organization, for things move and live by the spirit inspiring them, and may be killed by the rough grasp of a hand from without.
Now, there is a good deal of evidence in favor of the opinion that many of these societies are in the hands of secret leaders, and are managed on principles ill-according with Christianity and the public well-being; and that they do their utmost to get within their grasp the whole field of labor, and force working men either to join them or to starve.He deplored situations where governments suppressed religious orders and other Catholic organizations.
On class war . . .
Paragraph 19:
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.
The position of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter was further clarified in subsequent encyclicals, such as Quadragesimo anno, by Pope Pius XI in 1931.
Quadragesimo anno (Latin for "In the 40th Year")
This encyclical issued by Pope Pius XI on 15 May 1931, 40 years after Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum novarum was quite unlike his predecessor, Leo XIII, who had addressed the condition of workers. Instead Pius XI discusses the ethical implications of the social and economic order. He describes the major dangers for human freedom and dignity arising from unrestrained capitalism and totalitarian socialism/communism. He also calls for the reconstruction of the social order based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
Condemnation of communism and toleration of moderate socialism
Regarding communism and socialism, Pope Pius noted increasing differences. He condemns communism but also the social conditions which nourish it. He wants moderate socialism to distance itself from totalitarian communism as a matter of convenience and also as a matter of principle, in light of the dignity of the human person. Dignity and human freedom are ethical considerations, which cannot be solved from a hostile class confrontation. Ethics are based on religion and, declares the Pope, this is the realm where the Church meets industrial society.
"Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth."
"Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone."The encyclical describes in considerable detail a desired tripartist corporatist social structure in which government, industry, and labour work together in concert as part of a third way between capitalism and communism.
Condemning and NOT condemning the fascist regimes
Corporatism was widely adopted in the fascist nations of Catholic Europe, including the regimes of António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria. The Communist left regarded the encyclical as a partisan document, in which the Pope gave his blessing to the Fascist regimes. Franklin D. Roosevelt also had high praise for the encyclical and quoted it extensively on the evils of concentrated economic power.
The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe – review
David Kertzer's nuanced book investigates an unholy alliance between fascism and the Catholic church
Lucy Hughes-Hallett
Thu 6 Mar 2014 10.00 GMT
In 1938, Pope Pius XI addressed a group of visitors to the Vatican. There were some people, he said, who argued that the state should be all-powerful – "totalitarian". Such an idea, he went on, was absurd, not because individual liberty was too precious to be surrendered, but because "if there is a totalitarian regime – in fact and by right – it is the regime of the church, because man belongs totally to the church".
As David Kertzer demonstrates repeatedly in this nuanced book, to be critical of fascism in Italy in the 30s was not necessarily to be liberal or a lover of democracy. And to be antisemitic was not to be unchristian. The Pope told Mussolini that the church had long seen the need to "rein in the children of Israel" and to take "protective measures against their evil-doing". The Vatican and the fascist regime had many differences, but this they had in common.
Kertzer announces that the Catholic church is generally portrayed as the courageous opponent of fascism, but this is an exaggeration. There is a counter-tradition, John Cornwell's fine book, Hitler's Pope, on Pius XII (who succeeded Pius XI in 1939) exposed the Vatican's culpable passivity in the face of the wartime persecution of Italian Jews. But Kertzer describes something more fundamental than a church leader's strategic decision to protect his own flock rather than to speak up in defence of others. His argument, presented not as polemic but as gripping storytelling, is that much of fascist ideology was inspired by Catholic tradition – the authoritarianism, the intolerance of opposition and the profound suspicion of the Jews.
Pius XI – formerly Achille Ratti, librarian, mountain-climber and admirer of Mark Twain – was elected Pope in February 1922, eight months before Mussolini bullied his way to the Italian premiership. For 17 years the two men held sway over their separate spheres in Rome. In all that time they met only once, but they communicated ceaselessly by means of ambassadors and nuncios, through the press (each had his tame organ) and via less publicly accountable go-betweens. From the copious records of their exchanges Kertzer has uncovered a fascinating tale of two irascible – and often irrational – potentates, and gives us an account of some murky intellectual finagling, and an often startling investigation of the exercise of power.
The accession of Mussolini, known in his youth as mangiaprete – priest-eater – didn't bode well for the papacy. The fascist squads had been beating up clerics and terrorising Catholic youth clubs. But Mussolini saw that he could use the church to legitimise his power, so he set about wooing the clergy. He had his wife and children baptised. He gave money for the restoration of churches. After two generations of secularism, there were once again to be crucifixes in Italy's courts and classrooms. Warily, slowly, the Pope became persuaded that with Mussolini's help Italy might become, once more, a "confessional state".
Only gradually did it become clear how much the church might lose in the process. Pius fretted over inadequately dressed women – backless ballgowns and the skimpy outfits of female gymnasts were particularly worrisome. Mussolini played along, solemnly declaring that, in future, girls' gym lessons would be designed only to make them fit mothers of fascist sons. He was accommodating in aiding the Pope's war on heresy – banning Protestant books and journals on demand. But Mussolini was creating a heresy of his own. Schoolchildren were required to pray to him: "I humbly offer my life to you, o Duce." In January 1938, he summoned more than 2,000 priests, including 60 bishops, to participate in a celebration of his agricultural policy. Neither the Pope nor his secretary of state were happy, but they feared offending the dictator. And so the priests marched in procession through Rome. They laid wreaths, not at a Christian shrine, but on a monument to fascist heroes. They saluted Mussolini as he stood on his balcony and attended a ceremony where they were required to cheer his entrance, to pray for blessings upon him and roar out "O Duce! Duce! Duce!" That the fascists (beginning with their precursor, Gabriele d'Annunzio) had appropriated ecclesiastical rituals and liturgies could perhaps be taken as a compliment to the church, but to recruit its priests for the worship of a secular ruler was to humiliate God's vicar on earth. Mussolini was cock-a-hoop. It was easy to manipulate the church, he told his new allies in Nazi Germany. With a few tax concessions, and free railway tickets for the clergy, he boasted, he had got the Vatican so snugly in his pocket it had even declared his genocidal invasion of Abyssinia "a holy war".
When it comes to the "Jewish question", Kertzer demonstrates that the Pope's failure to protest effectively against the fascist racial laws arose not simply from weakness, but because antisemitism pervaded his church. Mussolini scored a painful hit when he assured Pius that he would do nothing to Italy's Jews that had not already been done under papal rule. Roberto Farinacci, most brutal of the fascist leaders, came close to the truth when he announced: "It is impossible for the Catholic fascist to renounce that antisemitic conscience which the church had formed through the millennia." And Catholic antisemitism was thriving. Among Pius's most valued advisers were several who – as Kertzer amply demonstrates – saw themselves as battling against a diabolical alliance of communists, Protestants, freemasons and Jews.
Avoiding overt partisanship, Kertzer coolly lays out the evidence; he describes his large and various cast of characters, and follows their machinations. We meet the genial Cardinal Gasparri who, narrowly missing the papacy himself, became Pius's secretary of state, handling the negotiations that led in 1929 to the Lateran Accords between the Vatican and the regime. Gasparri, a peasant's son who had risen far, considered Mussolini absurdly ignorant and uncouth; Mussolini thought him "very shrewd". We meet the Jesuit father, Tacchi Venturi, Pius's unofficial emissary, a firm believer in conspiracy theories, who claimed to have been nearly killed by an antifascist hitman (the story doesn't stand up). We meet Monsignor Caccia, Pius's master of ceremonies, who was known to the police and to Mussolini's spies for luring boys to his rooms in the Vatican for sex, rewarding them with contraband cigarettes. And we meet the motley crew familiar from histories of fascism: the doltish Starace, Mussolini's "bulldog"; Ciano, plump and boyish and, in the opinion of the American ambassador, devoid of "standards morally or politically"; and Clara Petacci, the girl with whom Mussolini spent hours of every day on the beach. Some of this is familiar territory, but what is new, and riveting, is how fascists and churchmen alike were forced into intellectual contortions as they struggled to justify the new laws. "Racism" was good. "Exaggerated racism" was bad. "Antisemitism" was good, as long as it was Italian. "German antisemitism" was another thing entirely.
Eventually Pius XI drew back from this casuistry. Kertzer describes the old pope on his deathbed, praying for just a few more days so that he could deliver a speech with the message that "all the nations, all the races" (Jews included) could be united by faith. He dies. Cardinal Pacelli – suave, emollient and devious, where Pius XI was a table-thumper who had no qualms about blurting out uncomfortable truths – clears his desk, suppresses his notes and persuades the Vatican's printer, who has the speech's text ready for distribution, to destroy it so that "not a comma" remains. Eighteen days later Pacelli becomes Pope Pius XII. It is a striking ending for a book whose narrative strength is as impressive as its moral subtlety.
• Lucy Hughes-Hallett's The Pike: Gabriele d'Annunzio has won the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction, the Costa biography award and the Duff Cooper prize.
Philosophical roots and economic and social policies
Christian democracy can trace its philosophical roots back to Thomas Aquinas and his thoughts on Aristotelian ontology and the Christian tradition. According to Aquinas, human rights are based on natural law and defined as the things that humans need to function properly. For example, food is a human right because without food humans cannot function properly. Modern authors important to the formation of Christian democratic ideology include Emmanuel Mounier, Étienne Gilson, and Jacques Maritain.
Economics
Initially many Catholic political movements in the 19th century had opposed capitalism and socialism equally as both were seen as based on materialism and social conflict. They instead preferred the ideal of self-sufficient peasants and the guild-organized craftsmen that many Catholic encyclicals advocated. However by 1914, many of these movements had later reconciled themselves to capitalism as the prevailing economic system while at the same time helping to organize Catholic workers and peasants within that system, as socialism became to be seen as the greater threat.
Consequently, this has led the social market economy which has been widely influential across much of continental Europe. The social market is a largely free market economy based on a free price system and private property, but is supportive of government activity to promote competitive markets with a comprehensive social welfare system and effective public services to address social inequalities that result from free market outcomes. The market is seen not so much an end in itself but as a means of generating wealth in order to achieve broader social goals and to maintain societal cohesion.[15] This particular model of capitalism, which is sometimes called Rhine–Alpine capitalism or social capitalism, is contrasted to Anglo-American capitalism or enterprise capitalism. Whereas the former stresses partnership and cooperation, the latter is based on the unrestricted workings of market economics and as a consequence there is a willingness on the part of Christian democratic parties to practice Keynesian and welfarist policies.
In recent decades, however, some right-leaning Christian democratic parties in Europe have adopted policies consistent with an economically liberal point of view but still supporting a regulated economy with a welfare state, while by contrast other Christian democrats at times seem to hold views similar to Christian socialism, or the economic system of distributism.
Distributism
According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right, and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state capitalism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership. Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.
Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.[9] Thomas Storck argues: "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. Further, some distributists argue that socialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism as capitalism's concentrated powers eventually capture the state, resulting in a form of socialism. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".
Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local cooperatives and small family businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism. Particularly influential in the development of distributist theory were Catholic authors G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, the Chesterbelloc, two of distributism's earliest and strongest proponents
The promotion of the Christian Democratic concepts of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity led to the creation of corporatist welfare states throughout the world that continue to exist to this day.
What is 'sphere sovereignty'?
In Neo-Calvinism, sphere sovereignty, also known as differentiated responsibility, is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life. Sphere sovereignty involves the idea of an all encompassing created order, designed and governed by God. This created order includes societal communities (such as those for purposes of education, worship, civil justice, agriculture, economy and labor, marriage and family, artistic expression, etc.), their historical development, and their abiding norms. The principle of sphere sovereignty seeks to affirm and respect creational boundaries, and historical differentiation.
The concept of sphere sovereignty became a general principle in European countries governed by Christian democratic political parties, who held it as an integral part of their ideology. A socialistic conception of sphere sovereignty held by Christian democrats led to the creation of corporatist welfare states throughout the world.
Subsidiarity?
Catholic social teaching on matters of human dignity and common good in society includes, in particular ideas that address oppression, the role of the state, subsidiarity, social organization, concern for social justice, and issues of wealth distribution. So subsidiarity, perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law, is a key concept within the thought of so-called Christian democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville's classic study, Democracy in America, may be viewed as an examination of the operation of the principle of subsidiarity in early 19th century America. De Tocqueville noted that the French Revolution began with "a push towards decentralization ... in the end, an extension of centralization". He wrote that
"Decentralization has, not only an administrative value, but also a civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom. And from the accumulation of these local, active, persnickety freedoms, is born the most efficient counterweight against the claims of the central government, even if it were supported by an impersonal, collective will."As Christian Democratic political parties were formed, they adopted the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity, as well as the neo-Calvinist theological teaching of sphere sovereignty, with both Protestants and Roman Catholics agreeing "that the principles of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity boiled down to the same thing".
In keeping with the Christian Democratic concepts of the cultural mandate and the preferential option for the poor, Christian justice is viewed as demanding that the welfare of all people, especially the poor and vulnerable, must be protected because every human being has dignity, being made in the image of God. In many countries, Christian Democrats organized labor unions that competed with Communist and social democratic unions, in contrast to conservativism's stance against worker organizations. Standing in solidarity with these labor unions, In Belgium for example, Christian Democrats have lobbied for Sunday blue laws that guarantee workers, as well as civil servants, a day of rest in line with historic Christian Sabbath principles.
Social policies
Christian democrats are usually socially conservative, and, as such, generally have a relatively sceptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, though some Christian democratic parties have accepted the limited legalization of both. Christian Democrats have also supported the prohibition of drugs. Christian democratic parties are often likely to assert the Christian heritage of their country, and to affirm explicitly Christian ethics, rather than adopting a more liberal or secular stance; at the same time, Christian Democratic parties enshrine confessional liberty. Christian Democracy fosters an "ecumenical unity achieved on the religious level against the atheism of the government in the Communist countries."
Traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, prohibition of drugs etc.), opposition to secularization, opposition to state atheism, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism. Christian democrats are open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo, have an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative. A rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it. An emphasis on the community, social justice and solidarity, support for a welfare state, labor unions and support for regulation of market forces. most European Christian Democrats reject the concept of class struggle (although less so in some Latin American countries, which have been influenced by liberation theology), opposing both excessive State institutions and unregulated capitalism in favor of robust non-governmental, non-profit, intermediary institutions to deliver social services and social insurance.
Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood have noted that "Christian democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."
Christian Democrats hold that the various sectors of society (such as education, family, economy and state) have autonomy and responsibility over their own sphere, a concept known as sphere sovereignty. One sphere ought not to dictate the obligations of another social entity; for example, the sphere of the state is not permitted to interfere with the raising of children, a role that belongs to sphere of the family. Within the sphere of government, Christian Democrats maintain that civil issues should first be addressed at the lowest level of government before being examined at a higher level, a doctrine known as subsidiarity.[8] These concepts of sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity are considered to be cornerstones of Christian Democracy political ideology.
As advocates of environmentalism, Christian democrats support the principle of stewardship, which upholds the idea that humans should safeguard the planet for future generations of life.
The Ordoliberal system
After the Second World War, Christian Democratic political groups, many of them strongly influenced by Catholic social teaching, worked to institute tripartist "neo-corporatist" or "social corporatist" systems in much of Europe, including the ordoliberal system of the social market economy in Germany, the Sozialpartnerschaft in Austria, the social partnership in Ireland, the polder model in the Netherlands, the concertation system in Italy, the Rhine model in Switzerland and the Benelux countries, and the Nordic model in Scandinavia.
Ordoliberalism is the German variant of social liberalism that emphasizes the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential. Ordoliberal ideals became the foundation of the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle). Ordoliberals separate themselves from classical liberals. Notably Walter Eucken, with Franz Böhm, founder of ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School, rejected neoliberalism.
Ordoliberals promoted the concept of the social market economy, and this concept promotes a strong role for the state with respect to the market, which is in many ways different from the ideas connected to the term neoliberalism. Oddly the term neoliberalism was originally coined in 1938, at the Colloque Walter Lippmann, by Alexander Rüstow, who is regarded an ordoliberal today.
Because of the connected history ordoliberalism is also sometimes referred to as "German neoliberalism". This led to frequent confusion and "mix ups" of terms and ideas in the discourse, debate and criticism of both economic schools of liberalism until in 1991 the political economists Michel Albert with Capitalisme Contre Capitalisme and in 2001 Peter A. Hall and David Soskice with Varieties of Capitalism aimed to separate the concepts and develop the new terms liberal market economy and coordinated market economy to distinguish neoliberalism and ordoliberalism.
Ordoliberal ideals (with modifications) drove the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy. They were especially influential on forming a firm competition law in Germany. However the social market economy was implemented in economies where corporatism was already well established and so the Ordoliberals could not establish their ideas as far reaching as they wished.
Ordoliberalism was a major influence of the economic model developed in post-war West Germany. Ordoliberalism in Germany became known as the social market economy. The Ordoliberal model implemented in Germany was started under the government administration of Konrad Adenauer. His government's Minister of Economics, Ludwig Erhard, was a known Ordoliberal and adherent of the Freiburg School. Under Adenauer, some, but not all, price controls were lifted, and taxes on small businesses and corporations were lowered. Furthermore, social security and pensions were increased to provide a social basis. Ordoliberals have stated that these policies led to the Wirtschaftswunder, or economic miracle.
Michel Foucault also notes the similarity (beyond just historical contemporaneity) between the Ordo/Freiburg school and the Frankfurt School of critical theory, due to their inheritance from Max Weber. That is, both recognise the "irrational rationality" of the capitalist system, but not the "logic of contradiction" that Marx posited. Both groups took up the same problem, but in vastly different directions. The political philosophy of Ordoliberals was influenced by Aristotle, de Tocqueville, Hegel, Spengler, Mannheim, Max Weber, and Husserl
Max Weber
Maximilian Karl Emil "Max" Weber was a highly influential German sociologist, philosopher, jurist, and political economist. His ideas profoundly influenced social theory and social research. Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the three founders of sociology. Weber was a key proponent of methodological antipositivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive (rather than purely empiricist) means, based on understanding the purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their own actions. Unlike Durkheim, he did not believe in monocausality and rather proposed that for any outcome there can be multiple causes.
Weber's main intellectual concern was understanding the processes of rationalisation, secularisation, and "disenchantment" that he associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. He saw these as the result of a new way of thinking about the world. Weber is best known for his thesis combining economic sociology and the sociology of religion, elaborated in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he proposed that ascetic Protestantism was one of the major "elective affinities" associated with the rise in the Western world of market-driven capitalism and the rational-legal nation-state. He argued that it was in the basic tenets of Protestantism to boost capitalism. Thus, it can be said that the spirit of capitalism is inherent to Protestant religious values.
Against Marx's historical materialism, Weber emphasised the importance of cultural influences embedded in religion as a means for understanding the genesis of capitalism. The Protestant Ethic formed the earliest part in Weber's broader investigations into world religion; he went on to examine the religions of China, the religions of India and ancient Judaism, with particular regard to their differing economic consequences and conditions of social stratification.
Weber continued his investigation into this matter in later works, notably in his studies on bureaucracy and on the classification of legitimate authority into three types—rational-legal, traditional and charismatic—of which the rational-legal (through bureaucracy) is the dominant one in the modern world. In these works Weber described what he saw as society's movement towards rationalisation. Similarly, rationalisation could be seen in the economy, with the development of highly rational and calculating capitalism. Weber also saw rationalisation as one of the main factors setting the European West apart from the rest of the world. Rationalisation relied on deep changes in ethics, religion, psychology and culture; changes that first took place in the Western civilisation.
What Weber depicted was not only the secularisation of Western culture, but also and especially the development of modern societies from the viewpoint of rationalisation. The new structures of society were marked by the differentiation of the two functionally intermeshing systems that had taken shape around the organisational cores of the capitalist enterprise and the bureaucratic state apparatus. Weber understood this process as the institutionalisation of purposive-rational economic and administrative action. To the degree that everyday life was affected by this cultural and societal rationalisation, traditional forms of life—which in the early modern period were differentiated primarily according to one's trade—were dissolved.Features of rationalisation include increasing knowledge, growing impersonality and enhanced control of social and material life.[ Weber was ambivalent towards rationalisation; while admitting it was responsible for many advances, in particular, freeing humans from traditional, restrictive and illogical social guidelines, he also criticised it for dehumanising individuals as "cogs in the machine" and curtailing their freedom, trapping them in the bureaucratic iron cage of rationality and bureaucracy. Related to rationalisation is the process of disenchantment, in which the world is becoming more explained and less mystical, moving from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones and finally to the Godless science of modernity. Those processes affect all of society, removing "sublime values... from public life" and making art less creative.
— Jürgen Habermas, Modernity's Consciousness of Time, 1990
In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism.
How is it at all possible to salvage any remnants of "individual" freedom of movement in any sense given this all-powerful trend?
— Max Weber
In the aftermath of World War II
After World War II, "both Protestant and Catholic political activists helped to restore democracy to war-torn Europe and extend it overseas". John Witte explaining the origin of Christian democracy, states that:
Both Protestant and Catholic parties inveighed against the reductionist extremes and social failures of liberal democracies and social democracies. Liberal democracies, they believed, had sacrificed the community for the individual; social democracies had sacrificed the individual for the community. Both parties returned to a traditional Christian teaching of "social pluralism" or "subsidiarity," which stressed the dependence and participation of the individual in family, church, school, business, and other associations. Both parties stressed the responsibility of the state to respect and protect the "individual in community."
As such, Christian democracy has been adopted by Roman Catholics as well as many Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Christian democracy has evolved considerably since then, and it is no longer the Catholic ideology of Distributism, although it is based on Catholic social teaching, as outlined in the 2006 official "Catechism of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church". (In Germany, for example, the Christian Democratic Party emerged as a grouping dominated by Rhenish and Westphalian Catholics, but also encompassed the more conservative elements of the Protestant population.) Following World War II, Christian democracy was seen as a neutral and unifying voice of compassionate conservatism, and distinguished itself from the far right. It gave a voice to "conservatives of the heart", particularly in Germany, who had detested Adolf Hitler's regime yet agreed with the right on many issues.
The CDU
Immediately following the collapse of the Nazi dictatorship at the end of World War II, the need for a new political order in Germany was paramount. Simultaneous yet unrelated meetings began occurring throughout Germany, each with the intention of planning a "Christian-democratic party". The "Christlich-Demokratische Union" was established in Berlin on 26 June 1945, and in Rheinland and Westfalen in September of the same year.
The founding members of the CDU consisted primarily of former members of the Centre Party, German Democratic Party, German National People's Party, and German People's Party. Many of these individuals, including CDU-Berlin founder Andreas Hermes and future chancellor of Germany Konrad Adenauer, were imprisoned for the involvement in the German Resistance during the Nazi dictatorship. In the Cold War years, after World War II up to the 1960s, the CDU also attracted conservative, anti-Communist former Nazis and Nazi collaborators into its higher ranks (like Hans Globke and Theodor Oberländer). A prominent anti-Nazi member was theologian Eugen Gerstenmaier who became Acting Chairman of the Foreign Board (1949-1969).
One of the lessons learned from the failure of the Weimar Republic was that disunity among the democratic parties ultimately allowed for the rise of the Nazi Party. It was therefore crucial to create a unified party of Christian Democrats – a Christian Democratic "Union". The result of these meetings was the establishment of an inter-confessional (Catholic and Protestant alike) party influenced heavily by the political tradition of liberal conservatism. The CDU experienced considerable success gaining support from the time of its creation in Berlin on 26 June 1945 until its first convention on 21 October 1950, at which Chancellor Adenauer was named the first Chairman of the party.
In the beginning, it was not clear which party would be favored by the victors of the Second World War, but by the end of the 1940s, the governments of the United States and of Britain began to lean toward the CDU and away from the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The latter was more nationalist and sought German reunification, even at the expense of concessions to the Soviet Union, depicting Adenauer as an instrument of both the Americans and the Vatican. The Western powers appreciated the CDU's moderation, its economic flexibility and its value as an oppositional force to the Communists, which appealed to European voters at the time. Also, Adenauer was trusted by the British.
The party was split over issues of rearmament within the Western alliance and German unification as a neutral state. Adenauer staunchly defended his pro-Western position and outmanoeuvred some of his opponents. He also refused to consider the SPD as a party of the coalition until he felt sure that they shared his anti-Communist position. The principled rejection of a reunification that would alienate Germany from the Western alliance made it harder to attract Protestant voters to the party, as most refugees from the former German territories east of the Oder were of that faith, as were the majority of the inhabitants of East Germany.
The CDU was the dominant party for the first two decades following the establishment of West Germany in 1949. Konrad Adenauer remained the party’s leader until 1963, at which point the former minister of economics Ludwig Erhard replaced him. As the Free Democratic Party (FDP) withdrew from the governing coalition in 1966 due to disagreements over fiscal and economic policy, Erhard was forced to resign. Consequently, a grand coalition with the SPD took over government under CDU Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger.
The SPD quickly gained popularity and succeeded in forming a social-liberal coalition with the FDP following the 1969 federal election, forcing the CDU out of power for the first time in their history. The CDU continued its role as opposition until 1982, when the FDP’s withdrawal from the coalition with the SPD allowed the CDU to regain power.
Populorum progressio by Pope Paul VI in 1967 is the encyclical written by Pope Paul VI on the topic of
"the development of peoples"and that the economy of the world should serve mankind and not just the few. It was released on March 26, 1967.
It touches on a variety of principles of Catholic social teaching:
- the right to a just wage;
- the right to security of employment;
- the right to fair and reasonable working conditions;
- the right to join a union;
- and the universal destination of resources and goods.
A Pope from Poland
The election of Pope Saint John Paul II in 1978 was significant in the recent history of seismic shifts in the political landscape of Europe. He served as Pope and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 1978 to 2005. He is called Saint John Paul the Great by some Catholics.
He was elected by the second Papal conclave of 1978, which was called after Pope John Paul I, who had been elected in August to succeed Pope Paul VI, died after thirty-three days. Cardinal Wojtyła was elected on the third day of the conclave and adopted his predecessor's name in tribute to him. John Paul II is recognised as helping to end Communist rule in his native Poland and eventually all of Europe. John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church's relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. He upheld the Church's teachings on such matters as artificial contraception and the ordination of women, but also supported the Church's Second Vatican Council and its reforms.
He was one of the most travelled world leaders in history, visiting 129 countries during his pontificate. As part of his special emphasis on the universal call to holiness, he beatified 1,340 people and canonised 483 saints, more than the combined tally of his predecessors during the preceding five centuries. By the time of his death, he had named most of the College of Cardinals, consecrated or co-consecrated a large number of the world's bishops, and ordained many priests. A key goal of John Paul's papacy was to transform and reposition the Catholic Church. His wish was "to place his Church at the heart of a new religious alliance that would bring together Jews, Muslims and Christians in a great religious armada".
John Paul II was the second longest-serving pope in modern history after Pope Pius IX, who served for nearly 32 years from 1846 to 1878. Born in Poland, John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope since the Dutch Pope Adrian VI, who served from 1522 to 1523.
Pope John Paul II has been credited with inspiring political change that not only led to the collapse of Communism in his native Poland and eventually all of Eastern Europe, but also in many countries ruled by dictators. In the words of Joaquín Navarro-Valls, John Paul II's press secretary:
The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began. Not in East Germany or Czechoslovakia. Then the whole thing spread. Why in 1980 did they lead the way in Gdansk? Why did they decide, now or never? Only because there was a Polish pope. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out. On many of those occasions, people would come here to the Vatican thanking the Holy Father for changing things.
John Paul II has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, by being the spiritual inspiration behind its downfall and catalyst for "a peaceful revolution" in Poland. Lech Wałęsa, the founder of Solidarity and the first post-Communist President of Poland, credited John Paul II with giving Poles the courage to demand change. According to Wałęsa, "Before his pontificate, the world was divided into blocs. Nobody knew how to get rid of Communism. In Warsaw, in 1979, he simply said: 'Do not be afraid', and later prayed: 'Let your Spirit descend and change the image of the land … this land'." It has also been widely alleged that the Vatican Bank covertly funded Solidarity.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the papers show that, as late as 1984, the pope did not believe the Communist Polish government could be changed."
The British historian Timothy Garton Ash, who describes himself as an "agnostic liberal", said shortly after John Paul II's death:
No one can prove conclusively that he was a primary cause of the end of communism. However, the major figures on all sides—not just Lech Wałęsa, the Polish Solidarity leader, but also Solidarity's arch-opponent, General Wojciech Jaruzelski; not just the former American president George Bush Senior but also the former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev—now agree that he was. I would argue the historical case in three steps: without the Polish Pope, no Solidarity revolution in Poland in 1980; without Solidarity, no dramatic change in Soviet policy towards eastern Europe under Gorbachev; without that change, no velvet revolutions in 1989.
In December 1989, John Paul II met with the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Vatican and each expressed his respect and admiration for the other. Gorbachev once said:
"The collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II."On John Paul II's death, Mikhail Gorbachev said: "Pope John Paul II's devotion to his followers is a remarkable example to all of us."
The president read the citation that accompanied the medal, which recognised "this son of Poland" whose "principled stand for peace and freedom has inspired millions and helped to topple communism and tyranny". After receiving the award, John Paul II said, "May the desire for freedom, peace, a more humane world symbolised by this medal inspire men and women of goodwill in every time and place."
It was Pope John Paul II who was responsible in 1991 for the drafting of the encyclical called Centesimus annus (Latin for "hundredth year") promulgated on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum, an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. It is an important part of the larger body of writings referenced above, known as Catholic social teaching, and that trace their origin to Rerum novarum (see above) and ultimately the New Testament.
Written in 1991, during the last days of the Cold War, Centesimus annus specifically examines contemporaneous political and economic issues. The encyclical is partially a refutation of Marxist/communist ideology and a condemnation of the dictatorial regimes that practiced it. The particular historical context in which it was written prompted Pope John Paul II to condemn the horrors of the communist regimes throughout the world. However, the Pope also reserved condemnation for reactionary regimes that persecuted their populations, ostensibly to combat Marxism/communism.
The encyclical expounds on issues of social and economic justice. The encyclical includes a defense of private property rights and the right to form private associations, including labour unions. It compares socialism to consumerism, identifying atheism as the source of their common denial, the dignity of the human person.
The reoccurring themes of social and economic justice mentioned in Centesimus annus articulate foundational beliefs in the social teaching of the Catholic Church. Throughout the encyclical the Pope calls on the State to be the agent of justice for the poor and to protect human rights of all its citizens, repeating a theme from Pope Leo XIII's Rerum novarum. Addressing the question of the State's obligation to defend human rights, Pope Leo XIII states:
When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government.But Pope John Paul II also defends private property, markets, and honorable business as necessary elements of a system of political economy that respects the dignity of the individual and allows the individual to express his full humanity. He formulates an Adam Smithian "invisible hand" argument:
Man fulfills himself by using his intelligence and freedom. In so doing he utilizes the things of this world as objects and instruments and makes them his own. The foundation of the right to private initiative and ownership is to be found in this activity. By means of his work man commits himself, not only for his own sake but also for others and with others. Each person collaborates in the work of others and for their good. Man works in order to provide for the needs of his family, his community, his nation, and ultimately all humanity.
Unlike Pope Leo XIII, Pope John Paul II writes to all people of good will.
The Document begins by pointing out various events that happened in the year of 1989 but more importantly how it embraced a longer period of the 1800s with dictatorial and oppressive regimes. This chapter expresses the importance of using moral, peaceful and visibility of the truth to diminish dictatorship or whatever they may have had which was negative to society as a whole. This approach was the opposite of what John Paul II supposed the Marxists thought ought to be followed. These supposed Marxists were represented as believing that only by social conflict would such matters be able to be resolved.
The encyclical made clear that "no political society should ever be confused with the kingdom of God"!
Google "The Kingdom of God" - then go to Images and you will see something like this!
Christian democracy in Poland?
The working paper Why is there no Christian Democracy in Poland (and why does this matter)? by Tim Bale and Aleks Szczerbiak (Published by the Sussex European Institute in December 2006) is very helpful in setting out the political landscape in Poland following the "fall of communism"in the 1980's. The abstract of the paper explains:
Despite the fact that almost all Poles are Roman Catholics and that religion has played an important part in post-communist Polish politics, no self-declared Christian Democratic party has been successful in post-1989 Poland. None of the currently successful Polish centre-right parties profile themselves as Christian Democratic, nor can they be labeled as such objectively. While superficially Poland looks like fertile ground for Christian Democracy, the factors that were crucial to the formation and success of Christian Democratic parties in post-war Western Europe were largely absent during the emergence of democratic, multi-party politics in post-communist Poland. Indeed, it is unlikely that such conjuncture will ever occur anywhere in Europe again, re-inforcing the need for the continent's existing Christian Democratic parties to modernise if they are to survive and prosper. Of course, parties are never simply produced and sustained by 'cleavages': they are more than institutional responses to some kind of social demand. The formation and success, or otherwise, of Christian Democratic parties owes much to the inter-play between social realities and sponsors, on the one hand, and the institutional and ideological crafting of entrepreneurial politicians, on the other.Their conclusion in 2006 was:
No self-declared Christian Democratic party has been successful in post-1989 Poland. None of the currently ‘successful’ Polish right wing or centre-right parties has self-consciously sought to profile itself as Christian Democratic nor do any of them fit the ideal type of an archetypal Christian Democratic party that we set out in our five-point model. A close examination of the period after the fall of the communist regime in Poland found that only the first of the seven conditions that we identified as crucial to the formation and success of Christian Democratic parties in post-war Western Europe – a substantial, practising Roman Catholic population – appeared to have been present unambiguously during the emergence of democratic, multi-party politics in post-communist Poland. Our second condition – fear of a takeover by a militant secularist, anti-clerical, egalitarian and potentially totalitarian left – also existed, but only in attenuated form. None of the other five factors that we identified - bedrock support from certain key electoral constituencies, potential competitors on the right either de-legitimised or unable to organise themselves rapidly, a Church hierarchy throwing its weight and resources behind its chosen Christian Democratic party, campaigning on behalf of that party by civil society groups, and a party that delivered the basics to the Church but retained relative autonomy from more contentious policy demands - were present in Poland, or only in a very limited or qualified form. One or more of the five distinctive core elements that we have identified as comprising archetypal Christian Democracy - a strong commitment to an organic view of society, support for the family as the key means of achieving societal equilibrium, a ‘social’ model of capitalism, trans-national reconciliation, and programmes rooted in and underpinned by religiosity - are present in each of the successful centre-right parties currently operating in Poland. Crucially, however, none of those parties could claim to combine all or even most of those elements. At the same time, national-patriotic themes appear to be a much more important element in the discourse of the Polish centre-right than its Christian Democratic counterparts elsewhere. One specific implication of this appears to be that the Polish centre-right is much less committed to federalism and more Eurosceptic than most of the centre-right in Western Europe. The latter has been strongly influenced by Christian Democratic ideas of transnational reconciliation that found expression in a longstanding attachment to European integration as a means of overcoming nationalism. The failure of a successful Christian Democratic to emerge in post-communist Poland reinforces the lesson that such parties in Western Europe are already learning: that,It is the national-patriotic themes that appear to be a much more important element in the discourse of the Polish centre-right than its Christian Democratic counterparts elsewhere that is a conclusive idea. Also, that the Polish centre-right is much less committed to federalism and more Eurosceptic than most of the centre-right in Western Europe.
individually, their continuation depends upon their adaptation; and that, collectively, they need be broad-minded when considering new recruits to their cause. The take-off and relative success of post-war Christian Democracy was contingent on a combination of socio-economic conditions and institutional choices that no longer exists and will never do so again. The non-emergence of a successful Christian Democratic party in post-1989 Poland – a nation of practicising Catholics, a large proportion of which is employed in the agriculture sector and in which the religious-secular divide was one of the most important means of ideological self-placement – means it is difficult to envisage a successful Christian Democratic party of the ‘classic’ post-war type emerging anywhere again in contemporary Europe. In order to survive and even prosper West European Christian Democratic parties have had to move on from the archetype. Both our case study and our broader exploration of Christian Democratic success in the post-war era confirm the need to question and qualify assumptions that parties are simply produced and sustained by ‘cleavages’ as institutional responses to, and expressions of, some kind of social demand. Rather, our paper shows that the formation and success of Christian Democratic parties owes much to the interplay between those social realities and sponsors, and the institutional and ideological crafting of entrepreneurial politicians. The ‘non-occurrence’ or ‘failure’ of a viable Christian Democratic party in post-Communist Poland, every bit as much as the appearance and success of such parties in some countries in post-war Western Europe, shows that what happens (or does not happen) to parties and party systems requires a political explanation that recognises this essential interaction between demand and supply.
The most recent encyclical regarding social teaching in a globalized world was Caritas in veritate by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
At the same time, "Protestant political activism emerged principally in England, the Lowlands, and Scandinavia under the inspiration of both social gospel movements and neo-Calvinism".
Christian Democratic initiatives based on its philosophy also have practical and political results in the movement's direction. Christian Democrats believe in the importance of intermediary organizations that operate in between the individual and the state. Therefore, they support labour unions but in many countries organized their own Christian trade unions separate from socialist unions. These unions in turn formed the strong left wing of many CD parties. Christian democratic opposition to secularism and support of religious organizations as intermediary organizations led to support for church operated schools, hospitals, charities and even social insurance funds. This resulted in strong Christian Democratic support for the government (or mandatory payroll tax) social welfare funding of these institutions.
In Protestant countries, Christian democratic parties were founded by more conservative Protestants in reaction to secularization. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Anti-Revolutionary Party was founded in 1879 by conservative Protestants; it institutionalized early 19th century opposition against the ideas from the French Revolution on popular sovereignty and held that government derived its authority from God, not from the people. This Burkean position is sometimes also called Christian Historian. It was a response to the liberal ideas that predominated in political life. The Christian Democrats of Sweden, rooted in the Pentecostal religious tradition, has a similar history.
Some Christian democratic parties, particularly in Europe, no longer emphasize religion and have become much more secular in recent years. Also within Europe, two essentially Islamic parties, the Democratic League of Kosovo and Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (usually known by the Turkish acronym AKP, for Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) have moved towards the tradition. The Democratic League of Kosovo is now a full member of the Centrist Democrat International.
No comments:
Post a Comment