Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: All Soul's Day Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/all_souls_day#8486 Post contents: Kevin, I think I understand what you are saying, and I must differ with you on a number of points, while agreeing with you on some others. Let me quote what I believe to be your central idea: <<So, my point is simple; extolling the virtues of regimes and persons who operate in opposition to that understanding is confusing to me....No matter how great their political or cultural contributions, in the end both of these men acted in flagrant contradiction of the Gospels and Church teaching. They do not deserve your praise.>> The key phrase here is to determine what is "opposition to that understanding." I think I have been very clear about weighing the "pros" and "cons" of various regimes. I think you are confusing my political and contextual judgments with my religious views.Let me recap what I have said (and I refer back to previous threads): First, as to Vichy: I have lauded certain elements (e.g.its legislation favoring Catholic education, public morality, laws favoring the family etc.). But by no means have I held it up as an unblemished model for Catholics; it's certainly a mixed bag. Same with Petain. I do "sympathize with his dilemna," politically. But, again, he is not for me a "model" for Catholics; most assuredly I recognize that. Especially as the War progressed, his ability to manoeuvre, to protect France, became more and more limited, and that he was nudged into decisions and the approval of actions that stained his honour. After the war he was not charged with genocide, but with collaborating with the Germans. Everything I have read about him seems to indicate that his objective was to preserve what was left of French independence. In that goal, he eventually failed, and brought himself down with it. Petain was no great intellect or thinker, and he was not a good politician. But we know this only post hoc, when he was offered power in the summer of 1940, he was welcomed by almost all political parties (and even the USA) as a way to protect what was left of French independence. My judgment of him has to do almost exclusively with his statecraft as it existed in an almost impossible position. Still, I will not simply, 65 years later and in comfortable hindsight, utter a blanket condemnation. The record is much more mixed. Second, with Maurras, I do (mostly) admire him, but, once again, I do not consider him to be a "model" for Catholics; but I do think in his brilliant writings he provided an immense arsenal for Catholics who wished to defend the faith and the history of the faith. Of course, he had blemishes. Your point here is, it seems to me, that (1) he was for much of his life an agnostic, and (2) that he basically "used" Catholicism as a buttress for his French nationalism. I don't deny that taken as such that this is partially correct, but only partially so. But Maurras, let me point out, did find his way into the Church, and he GAVE to French Catholicism as much, and probably much more, than he ever used of it in an utilitarian manner. I firmly believe that Our Lord can use intellects like Maurras to strengthen the faith. And it was through the writings of Maurras that all sorts of Catholic writers and savants, men like Maritain, Peguy. Paul Claudel, Gustave Thibon, etc. etc. found their way to the Church. Dare I suggest that Our Lord was using Maurras during his agnostic period to strengthen the Church, even as Maurras was using the Church (and its teachings) to strengthen France? We can be critical of this, if you wish, but I don't think you can deny it. Third, as to Dollfuss and Salazar, my earlier (and very extensive) posts have dealt with them. I have just re-read Johannes Messner's bio of Dollfuss and dipped back into Michael Derrick's contemporary study of Salazar. Both men weredevout Catholics, deeply concerned about social justice, deeply read in the social doctrines of the Church, and both faced with situations that required drastic steps. Dollfuss was only in authority for a couple of years, and thus it is hard to judge his record. Salazar, however, led Portugal for 35 years, and the judgment of most historians I've read is that for the first half of his tenure his measures were fairly successful, but by the late 1950s the managerial bureaucracy that had arisen became an impediment to economic progress. The Christian Social ideas of Ignaz Seipel, who preceded Dollfuss, and what historian Alfred Diamant calls "socialreform," reflect a century of Catholic teaching and writing about the 'social question'. Salazar was more of an academic than Dollfuss (Salazar had been a highly respected professor of economics and economics minister prior to his ascension to leadership). But both men undertook during an extremely perilous time to implement ideas that come directly from Catholic teaching on the social order. Pius XI offer his warm approval of both efforts. Both men deserve praise for their efforts, and perhaps another look at just what they were trying to do. Finally, one last thought: I agree with you totally that the bifurcation between what you call the "self" (I would say "belief") and worldly endeavours threatens to engulf our society (and Europe is much further advanced in this process, I would suggest). But the key here, it seems to me Kevin, is not stating the problem but understanding just how those beliefs manifest themselves, and even more importantly, understanding what those beliefs are. Let me give an example: Post-World War II Europe has gone from the perhaps overly optimistic efforts of Adenauer, De Gasperi, and De Gaulle to bring both economic and moral order (based at least indirectly in Christian ideas) to the continent to today when hyper feminist, "p.c." devotee Angela Merkel can head a "Christian Democrat" Union and a glitzy "p.c." managerial elitist (Sarkozy) can claim the mantel in France, and both can accept a Europe that will not even acknowledge its essential Christian heritage. When I offer brief criticism of this process, I do so both based on my essential beliefs as well as how I see those beliefs should unfold in society. While I can justly admire the "German economic miracle" and the work of Wilhelm Roepke (and Ludwig Erhard), I also offer criticisms and see implicit in the "democratic model" and "apertura a sinistra" serious problems that bore the seeds of the destruction we now see before us, and the secularization and cultural Marxistization of Europe. And if I suggest that societies that place economic prosperity above spiritual values are gluttons for punishment, and hold up the initial emphases of Dollfuss and Salazar, or the Blessed Garcia Moreno in Ecuador, for instance,on the spiritual end of life, I do not think I do an injustice to them, not do I misunderstand the old and true injunction of the Baltimore Catechism, that the objective of man is to love and serve God--(and Not to raise the standard of living, although I would quite agree that doing so is very desirable, and that a prosperous society, one providing opportunity--economically--for citizens, is and should be a goal of all statecraft). But unlike 19th century liberalism and the "social democratism" that has manifested itself on this thread, I believe that the salvation of souls is prior to any of this. One last thought: perhaps you would like to know some of the figures that I DO consider to be Catholic models, in particular as relates to statecraft? Well, I would certainly include the Blessed Charles of Habsburg, whose unselfish efforts to end World War I are a model for us all. I would also include the Blessed Garcia Moreno of Ecuador, who was martyred for his efforts to bring the faith to that country. I would also include the thousands of priests, nuns, and bishops who were massacred by the Trotskyites, Anarchists, and Republicans in Spain (many of whom have been beatified and canonized of late). The Blessed Cardinal Stepinac of Zagreb, Engelbert Dollfuss (whose cause has been introduced), and others.... In any case, this is where I come down. I am quite aware of what I say and the implications that follow from it. Be assured. Sent at: 2008 11 20