AHC: An Italian catholic revoultion

Cook

Banned
Make an Iran-esque revolution occur in Italy.
Bit hard that. For starters Italy has been a democracy since the Second World War with direct proportional representation; people don’t need to take to the streets to shape the way the country is run, they just have to vote. The Iranian revolution wasn’t an uprising to bring in Islam so much as to bring down the Shah.
 
Bit hard that. For starters Italy has been a democracy since the Second World War with direct proportional representation; people don’t need to take to the streets to shape the way the country is run, they just have to vote. The Iranian revolution wasn’t an uprising to bring in Islam so much as to bring down the Shah.

It was democratic before Mussolini too, was it not?

Maybe if you had Italy, by some circumstance, become a Soviet puppet after WWII? The resistance movement is linked pretty strongly to the Roman Catholic Church, and ushers in a "Catholic democracy" upon the overthrow of the Soviet puppet government?
 
Make an Iran-esque revolution occur in Italy.

Very though.
My first thought was to call ASBs on this.
However, here's my take:

In 1940, Ciano talks Mussolini out of the idea of declaring war. Italy focuses on strengthening the grip on East Africa and Albania and looks around anxiously for cheap opportunities at landgrap, but stays out of the mess, although quite German-friendly.
Hitler has little to complain about it.
However, pointing out the dangerous political situation, Mussolini decides he has the excuse to enforce measures that ramp up control; censorship is tightened, opposition persecuted more thoroughly, the scope of anti-Jewish laws widened, and so. Among these measures, control of education by the State is reinforced, with the request that Catholic school programs are controlled by the government. This is accepted, but it's a stretch under the Concordat and many clerics are pissed off.
At the same time, bilateral relationship between Germany and the Vatican worsen. Feeling a bit more secure as Italy is not at war, Pius XII resolves to emit a more open condemnation of Nazism than he did OTL, though he's unlikely to go as far as saying that any Catholic who cooperates with Nazis is automatically excommunicated. This causes, as he had foreseen, a backlash against Catholics in German-occupied Europe and some more fault lines emerge; the Church is less pliable to condone crimes by the pro-Nazi regimes in Croatia and Slovakia, which in turn do far less of a pretend of Catholicism. All in all, this means that a solidly anti-fascist, persecution-hardened component of the Church will be there after the war.
The war goes broadly similarly to OTL, minus the East African, Libyan and Italian theatres; France lasts marginally longer in 1940, and is more riven by contrasts; Germany does marginally better in Russia thanks to the offensive starting a little earlier and more resources not spent in Africa and Greece. Jugoslavia is invaded more or less on schedule for similar reasons, and while remaining neutral on the whole, Italy might get a share in Dalmatia. Italian volounteers fight in Russia ITTL as well. In the big picture, however, this is not enough to change things in the end. Russia is even worse off than OTL, but the Western Allies don't fare so well in *Normandy. Berlin falls just in time to avoid a nuclear blast in summer 1945.
The Pacific War goes broadly like OTL.

So it's 1945, Nazi Germany has been just horribly wiped out and Mussolini is trying to sit out the mess hoping no one notices. He has used this time to improve the military, at least on paper, trying to puppetize Greece as discreetly as possible (not working that well) and rooting out of Italy any political, social or cultural force that isn't Fascism. He's been fairly successful, and with less brutality than, say, his colleague Franco. The only force he couldn't simply suppress is the Catholic Church, but the mutual attitude has become incrasingly confrontational.
As the rest of Europe is pretty much a wreck in 1945 and Italian economy fares relatively not so bad, industrial exports boom, allowing Italian industrialists and the Fascist Party leaderchip to get filthy rich.
Il Duce decides that the US are his new best friend and in the new Cold War context is the Western proxy for the ongoing vicious civil war going on in former Jugoslavia, where he hopes to keep his ill-gained grabs and if possible expand them, or at least instate subservient regimes in small successor states. This devolves into an unholy mess where nobody is sure what the hell is going on and why, except that the US are supporting whoever is not Communist, including support for every brand of Croat, Serb, Slovenian and Macedonian nationalists at each other's throat.
The unclear situation makes Stalin unwilling to commit troops directly, but the chaos is such that many expect WIII to begin in Sarajevo by 1948.

This is avoided and Jugoslavia is finally divided into Communist Macedonia and Serbia, a quite oversized monarchical Montenegro, a rightist, authoritarian, but not exactly fascist Croatia that includes most of Bosnia (other parts go to Serbia, including Sarajevo, and Montenegro) and neutralized Slovenian republic that looks worriedly at Italy (who got a slice of Kosovo) and so tries to make best friends with the democracies. Bosniak Muslims got the short stick and many emigrate to Turkey. Those who stay are in for quite difficult times, varyingly more so in the Serbian or Croatian territories.
This dirty war has been pretty unpopular in Italy, with the Church as the only organization able to voice some degree of dissent; this makes Mussolini even more confrontational, arresting prominent former Popular politicians and any cleric he does not like.

In prisons, Catholic anti-fascism elaborates (possibly both in Italy and Croatia). Building on the Popular roots and the thought of Luigi Sturzo and Primo Mazzolari, a corpus of reflections on the relationship between Catholicism, Fascism and society develops. Some priests are exiled rather than imprisoned and end up in Latin America, where a movement analogous to OTL Liberation Theology will appear. Some books are circulating clandestinely. Finally in the sixties, a young, smart priest called Lorenzo Milani (OTL character; although his life here is very different) after having spent years in confinement and prison in Italy and then as a missionary in the poorest favelas of, say, Sao Paulo publishes "Church, State, Justice". He says that the States is a powerful instrument of modernity, that could ensure betterment in the life of many people; but it is also a moral agent, inherently tyrannical and unjust. Only the Church possesses an approximation to true justice; it is therefore its duty to overthrow tyrannical states and assume control of the government machinery directly.
The book is incredibly controversial within the Church and is obviously banned in Italy. Milani however is a talented polemist and orator and writes very convincigly.
He's a passionate believer in his view and has a wide culture.
Soon his ideas gain, if not acceptance, audience. Catholics have an anti-Fascist ideal rallying point.
The regime cracks down more heavily as a consequences, bordering on persecution as far as it can without risking open revolt; but the aging Mussolini and his increasingly subservient cronies have lost touch with reality. They start interfering with things like appointment of bishops and festivities.

Things worsen throughout the late sixties and early seventies, with the Fascist regime increasingly unpopular and decrepit, Italy more and more isolated from the world, the economy strained bu unwinnable conflicts in Africa and what is gained from Libyan oil enriching only a few leaders.
Milani's militant Catholicism is the only serious rallying point for the masses.
Mussolini is dead and his successor (let's say he's Farinacci) acts even more ham-handedly in suppressing Catholic dissent. At some point, he does something highly provocative and stupid that causes public protest. Police fires on the rallyings. The government thinks some grapeshot will give those cowardly priests and their timid flock the therapy they need. On the contrary, protest increases.
The Pope declares the dead are "Martyrs".
Things start really go downhill as almost simultaneously, Portugal and Spain are undergoing a similar process, although not led by militant Catholics.
Rallyings become urban fightings. Policemen start to refuse to gun-machine their own people. Soldiers start to mutiny.
The Catholic Revolution has begun...
 
It was democratic before Mussolini too, was it not?

Maybe if you had Italy, by some circumstance, become a Soviet puppet after WWII? The resistance movement is linked pretty strongly to the Roman Catholic Church, and ushers in a "Catholic democracy" upon the overthrow of the Soviet puppet government?

That's quite like OTL's Poland.
 
Have a POD before the 1800s and have the Papal States take control of the entire peninsula. Maybe today the Pope would be the supreme leader of Italy and perhaps there will be a president underneath him like Ahmadinejad.
 

Cook

Banned
It was democratic before Mussolini too, was it not?

I did say hard, not ASB. Not really an option in OTL post-WW2.

However, pointing out the dangerous political situation, Mussolini decides he has the excuse to enforce measures that ramp up control; censorship is tightened, opposition persecuted more thoroughly, the scope of anti-Jewish laws widened, and so.
The anti-Jewish restrictions were only introduced in 1938 to strengthen the relationship with Nazi Germany; prior to that they hadn’t featured in Italian Fascism (Mussolini had to find a new dentist) and weren’t popular. If Mussolini is keeping a bit of distance between himself and Hitler, would he be inclined to broaden the Jewish persecution, particularly when it was so damaging to his relationship with the United States?
 
That sounds pretty interesting. What do you think this "catholic revolution" effect on Catholicism will be?

If I may interject here...

The breakdown of the Italian fascist government would take place during the reign of Paul VI. But he will take the reigns of a different church, if he's elected at all. Let's say John XXIII ascends as IOTL after Pius's death.

Would the Pope ITTL call the Second Vatican Council?

IOTL, he said that the Holy Spirit inspired him to call the council. Would Mussolini permit the gathering? Would he seriously have a say in the matter, beyond forbidding the bishops to be flown into Rome?

Could even he be so stupid as to try and block the Pope's will on that matter?

Would some OTL reforms take place? I could see some making a case for Latin to be retained as marking the unity of the Church against the tyranny of the nationalist-fascist states.

And John dies in the middle of the council, should it take place. Who would replace him? A Church in such different straits from its OTL position would certainly need a different high priest. But--for now--let's go with our OTL Paul VI. How would the issue of Papal authority vs. collegiality go? Would the Pope be seen to be vulnerable to fascist manipulation, for his precarious location in the heart of fascist Italy? Or would the bishops be considered pliable for their lower rank and thus reduced political protection (it's one thing to mess with a local bishop--it's another to try and impose on the Holy Father).

And, of course, the Syllabus of Errors. The Church described in Falecius's post would seem to be the type to keep the classical position--the Catholic Church ought to get special treatment from all states, while other religions only be tolerated. This is a way to spite the fascists, and could relate to Fr. Milani's doctrine of the Church as the closest thing to true justice. There would be less participation in dialogue with the Protestants ITTL. OTOH, the same council IOTL denounced anti-semetism, and would do the same ITTL.

This all assumes the Second Vatican Council is called as IOTL. But if it's not, then you have a bigger change--a Catholic Church as it was pre-Vatican II continuing through the 1970s. Not to mention TTL's counterpart to Humanae Vitae.

And who might be the Pope in the future? Would a Pole ascend to the throne of St. Peter if Italy herself is in turmoil?
 
Polish Eagle, the thing is, a lot of the OTL refoms were being mooted as easrly as the turn of the century. Vatican II is in mny senses the finising of what was interrupted by Vat I.
 
I did say hard, not ASB. Not really an option in OTL post-WW2.


The anti-Jewish restrictions were only introduced in 1938 to strengthen the relationship with Nazi Germany; prior to that they hadn’t featured in Italian Fascism (Mussolini had to find a new dentist) and weren’t popular. If Mussolini is keeping a bit of distance between himself and Hitler, would he be inclined to broaden the Jewish persecution, particularly when it was so damaging to his relationship with the United States?

Well, I see it as a slippery slope. As the restrictions are introduced, Jews obviously tend to oppose the regime, so he'll think he has to crack down on them worse. Mussolini wasn't enthusiastic about the Race Laws, but some nutjobs in the inner circle were.
Moreover, that's a way to play friends with Germany without having to take risks.
He'll probably would lift some restrictions after 1945 though.
 
If I may interject here...

The breakdown of the Italian fascist government would take place during the reign of Paul VI. But he will take the reigns of a different church, if he's elected at all. Let's say John XXIII ascends as IOTL after Pius's death.

Would the Pope ITTL call the Second Vatican Council?

IOTL, he said that the Holy Spirit inspired him to call the council. Would Mussolini permit the gathering? Would he seriously have a say in the matter, beyond forbidding the bishops to be flown into Rome?

Could even he be so stupid as to try and block the Pope's will on that matter?

Would some OTL reforms take place? I could see some making a case for Latin to be retained as marking the unity of the Church against the tyranny of the nationalist-fascist states.

And John dies in the middle of the council, should it take place. Who would replace him? A Church in such different straits from its OTL position would certainly need a different high priest. But--for now--let's go with our OTL Paul VI. How would the issue of Papal authority vs. collegiality go? Would the Pope be seen to be vulnerable to fascist manipulation, for his precarious location in the heart of fascist Italy? Or would the bishops be considered pliable for their lower rank and thus reduced political protection (it's one thing to mess with a local bishop--it's another to try and impose on the Holy Father).

And, of course, the Syllabus of Errors. The Church described in Falecius's post would seem to be the type to keep the classical position--the Catholic Church ought to get special treatment from all states, while other religions only be tolerated. This is a way to spite the fascists, and could relate to Fr. Milani's doctrine of the Church as the closest thing to true justice. There would be less participation in dialogue with the Protestants ITTL. OTOH, the same council IOTL denounced anti-semetism, and would do the same ITTL.

This all assumes the Second Vatican Council is called as IOTL. But if it's not, then you have a bigger change--a Catholic Church as it was pre-Vatican II continuing through the 1970s. Not to mention TTL's counterpart to Humanae Vitae.

And who might be the Pope in the future? Would a Pole ascend to the throne of St. Peter if Italy herself is in turmoil?

I think that Montini (Paul VI) would be elected immediately after Pius XII in the scenario I sketched. John XXIII's election was sort of a fluke because Montini was thought to be a too polarizing figure, but under a Fascist Italy the Curia will probably the need for his diplomatic and political skills as paramount. So he'll have a longer tenure. I think he might call a Council. After all, the Church has many problems (even worse than OTL) and he supported the idea of a council strongly as a counselor to John XXIII.
However, he'll be a much more "political" and less "pastoral" character. The Council itself would be quite different from OTL's counterpart, but it would happen entirely under Paul. I expect Roncalli (John XXIII) to be very influential in the Council no matter what, but he'll remain a relatively minor figure.

The Fascist regime won't do thing so idiotic as trying to stop the Council, but its presence would be felt in a nasty way, and whatever happens during this gathering is very likely to worsen the rift between the Church and the State.

The Revolution should happen in the later years of Paul or, to push the Iran parallel further, upon his death in the late seventies, maybe triggered by some ham-handed attempt by the regime to impose a pliable successor. In such a scenario, Wojtyla is probably a no-go. The question is whether a non-Italian has chances. I could see, ironically, the Catholic revolutionaries looking for a foreigner. How about Helder Camara? ;)
 
That sounds pretty interesting. What do you think this "catholic revolution" effect on Catholicism will be?

Honestly it's difficult to say. In a sense, it's a dive deep back into the Middle Ages. In another, it's incredibly "modern". So I guess it would be highly divisive for Catholics esp. at first. I can see conservatives and radical modernists in the Church's spectrum becoming allies of sorts (talk about strange bedfellows) and neing opposed by a more "moderate-traditionalist" mainstream.
I doubt there would be a major schism, but some splits are very likely. Whoever is Pope at the moment will have a very hard time sorting things together.
Revolutionary Catholicism will be popular in Latin America, much less in the rest of Europe (except possibly Iberia) and in North America (except maybe Quebec) and probably not dominant in Africa. Since in a sense it's liberation theology in spades, it will have a very problematic relationship with the Western Bloc.
Now, Italy in the non-aligned movement would be... interesting to say the least. Assuming somebody like Reagan of Nixon in charge in the US, the Dept. of State might come to see the whole matter as "Soviet infiltration in the Vatican" or somesuch. If the actual Iranian revolution happens more or less on schedule, by the way, you could see an Italian-Iranian alliance of sorts.

Also, I'm assuming that Italy has either kept her colonies or just relinquished them. That too would have huge side-effects on, for example, Christian-Muslim relationships.

While I repeat that I think that my scenario is unlikely, I admit it will have some big ramifications.
 
Reading over your post 4, Falecius, I saw two big problems. One of them, the nature of the ATL "liberation theology" of Milani, you seem to have addressed--only in a fashion that makes it more problematic. But the other issue is so large that it would butterfly all this away I'd think.

That is, the relation of post-1945 Fascist Italy to the USA. Postwar, the Americans are going to dominate the reconstruction of Western Europe as per OTL, and you have Mussolini maneuvering to put himself in the good graces of the Yanks. Presumably if there is a NATO analog here (as there surely would be I'd think) Italy is one of the founding members.

I'm sad to say that I agree that Washington, especially once the anti-Nazi fervor of the wartime alliance fades and the new concern is to contain Communism, would have little qualms about including a repressive dictatorship in the anti-Communist alliance. Just look at Franco's tenure in NATO post-war OTL.

What would be problematic would be if Mussolini had strained relations with the Vatican. If the Popes and Curia have nominally cordial relations with the Fascist government, no problem. But if the dictator and the pontiff are squaring off against each other, the huge importance of Roman Catholics in the domestic politics of the USA comes into play. Postwar, both the progressive aka "New Deal" and the spectrum of conservative to reactionary right-wing politics included lots of Catholics; whether the US remains liberal or veers itself into a repressive direction, American Catholics are going to raise questions about why the political regime we are backing in Italy can't get along better with the Pope. And no matter what the political mood is in Washington, the Americans are going to be in a position to do something about it, up to and including overthrowing the Fascists and putting in a new Italian regime that is more on the same page. OTOH, the US is not a Roman Catholic country so it will not be a priority to make the Church dominant in Italy--just get a regime that can get along reasonably well with the Pope. If we assume the US politics isn't massively butterflied and parallels OTL, what the Americans would like to see would be a liberal regime with lots of conservative elements, analogous to West Germany under the Christian Democrats.

Can Mussolini survive this? Absolutely, I fear. All he has to do is learn to play nice with the Pope. Let the Church have its dignity, settle conflicts in a mutually agreeable way, and then Washington will back Fascist Rome with scarcely a murmur. As long as American Catholics don't see their Mother Church being persecuted, most of them will think it's all good.

It's a straightforward solution that Mussolini and his successors would be perfectly capable of adopting. Unfortunately while it lays the groundwork for a majorly divergent and interesting alt-timeline it does not in any way lead to a Catholic theocracy in Italy. It leads directly away from it. For Mussolini to instead choose, again and again, to annoy and threaten the Church is handing him the Idiot Ball, and it is hard to see how it could go on more than a handful of years before the Americans lay down some sort of ultimatum--play nice with the Vatican or be replaced. By then, it shouldn't be too difficult for the CIA to organize a coup, a coalition of establishment soldiers and diplomats who want Italy to go on being a major player in NATO, with disgruntled liberals and carefully chosen populist radicals to provide at least a facade of liberal populism, and of course the mighty organizational structure of the Church itself. And Mussolini and the more stubborn Fascists would then be quite lucky to escape with their lives, and where would they run to? No, in postwar Europe dominated by the USA, any smart Western leader would know better than to get into a catfight with the Vatican.:rolleyes:

So that pretty much moots the questions I'd have about the nature of Milani's version of Liberation Theology. It would be easy for a movement you described rather vaguely in post 4 to be suitably reactionary to please the Papacy and yet have some populist traction. But comparing to OTL Liberation Theology suggests a more radical approach that would be offensive to the Curia, unless you were assuming that the conflict with Mussolini was driving the Church strongly to the left, which doesn't seem like the most plausible dynamic to me. Of course if Milaniism were indeed as leftist as Liberation Theology was OTL, and yet the Popes embraced it, then the US power brokers might reevaluate their priorities regarding upholding Vatican over Rome--but meanwhile US Catholicism would be in turmoil too, making the whole matter hotter.

So come to think of it, perhaps a leftward-moving Curia could pose dilemmas strong enough to check American demands that the Italian government make nice with the Pope. And so one paradox explains another.

But this seems quite unlikely to me, and it would be more reasonable assume Milani would be nowhere near as radical as OTL Liberation Theologians. And so the matter swings back to how long the USA would tolerate a Fascist Italy that fights with the Pope, and my guess is that such a regime would be gone well before the end of 1953, if not indeed by 1947 or so. More likely they'd be smart enough to play along with American desires and there would be cordial relations with the Curia, and a moderate drive to gradually liberalize the secular government--as long as Americans can discern steps that look like progress to them, it can go at a snail's pace. I don't know how long you can expect Mussolini to live, but I'd think that by the 1960s Italy would have pretty well converged with OTL. And a theocratic revolution there would be out of the question.
 
Reading over your post 4, Falecius, I saw two big problems. One of them, the nature of the ATL "liberation theology" of Milani, you seem to have addressed--only in a fashion that makes it more problematic. But the other issue is so large that it would butterfly all this away I'd think.

That is, the relation of post-1945 Fascist Italy to the USA. Postwar, the Americans are going to dominate the reconstruction of Western Europe as per OTL, and you have Mussolini maneuvering to put himself in the good graces of the Yanks. Presumably if there is a NATO analog here (as there surely would be I'd think) Italy is one of the founding members.

I'm sad to say that I agree that Washington, especially once the anti-Nazi fervor of the wartime alliance fades and the new concern is to contain Communism, would have little qualms about including a repressive dictatorship in the anti-Communist alliance. Just look at Franco's tenure in NATO post-war OTL.

What would be problematic would be if Mussolini had strained relations with the Vatican. If the Popes and Curia have nominally cordial relations with the Fascist government, no problem. But if the dictator and the pontiff are squaring off against each other, the huge importance of Roman Catholics in the domestic politics of the USA comes into play. Postwar, both the progressive aka "New Deal" and the spectrum of conservative to reactionary right-wing politics included lots of Catholics; whether the US remains liberal or veers itself into a repressive direction, American Catholics are going to raise questions about why the political regime we are backing in Italy can't get along better with the Pope. And no matter what the political mood is in Washington, the Americans are going to be in a position to do something about it, up to and including overthrowing the Fascists and putting in a new Italian regime that is more on the same page. OTOH, the US is not a Roman Catholic country so it will not be a priority to make the Church dominant in Italy--just get a regime that can get along reasonably well with the Pope. If we assume the US politics isn't massively butterflied and parallels OTL, what the Americans would like to see would be a liberal regime with lots of conservative elements, analogous to West Germany under the Christian Democrats.

Can Mussolini survive this? Absolutely, I fear. All he has to do is learn to play nice with the Pope. Let the Church have its dignity, settle conflicts in a mutually agreeable way, and then Washington will back Fascist Rome with scarcely a murmur. As long as American Catholics don't see their Mother Church being persecuted, most of them will think it's all good.

It's a straightforward solution that Mussolini and his successors would be perfectly capable of adopting. Unfortunately while it lays the groundwork for a majorly divergent and interesting alt-timeline it does not in any way lead to a Catholic theocracy in Italy. It leads directly away from it. For Mussolini to instead choose, again and again, to annoy and threaten the Church is handing him the Idiot Ball, and it is hard to see how it could go on more than a handful of years before the Americans lay down some sort of ultimatum--play nice with the Vatican or be replaced. By then, it shouldn't be too difficult for the CIA to organize a coup, a coalition of establishment soldiers and diplomats who want Italy to go on being a major player in NATO, with disgruntled liberals and carefully chosen populist radicals to provide at least a facade of liberal populism, and of course the mighty organizational structure of the Church itself. And Mussolini and the more stubborn Fascists would then be quite lucky to escape with their lives, and where would they run to? No, in postwar Europe dominated by the USA, any smart Western leader would know better than to get into a catfight with the Vatican.:rolleyes:

So that pretty much moots the questions I'd have about the nature of Milani's version of Liberation Theology. It would be easy for a movement you described rather vaguely in post 4 to be suitably reactionary to please the Papacy and yet have some populist traction. But comparing to OTL Liberation Theology suggests a more radical approach that would be offensive to the Curia, unless you were assuming that the conflict with Mussolini was driving the Church strongly to the left, which doesn't seem like the most plausible dynamic to me. Of course if Milaniism were indeed as leftist as Liberation Theology was OTL, and yet the Popes embraced it, then the US power brokers might reevaluate their priorities regarding upholding Vatican over Rome--but meanwhile US Catholicism would be in turmoil too, making the whole matter hotter.

So come to think of it, perhaps a leftward-moving Curia could pose dilemmas strong enough to check American demands that the Italian government make nice with the Pope. And so one paradox explains another.

But this seems quite unlikely to me, and it would be more reasonable assume Milani would be nowhere near as radical as OTL Liberation Theologians. And so the matter swings back to how long the USA would tolerate a Fascist Italy that fights with the Pope, and my guess is that such a regime would be gone well before the end of 1953, if not indeed by 1947 or so. More likely they'd be smart enough to play along with American desires and there would be cordial relations with the Curia, and a moderate drive to gradually liberalize the secular government--as long as Americans can discern steps that look like progress to them, it can go at a snail's pace. I don't know how long you can expect Mussolini to live, but I'd think that by the 1960s Italy would have pretty well converged with OTL. And a theocratic revolution there would be out of the question.

Shevek, all very good points. The whole point of my post was trying to sort out a semi-plausible way to fulfill an almost impossible challenge - I agree with you that the odds are that, with Italy neutral in WWII, her most likely post war path is as a reactionary dictatorship in the Western bloc, and one who at least tries to concile the Church when possible.
My sketch was based on pushing the Iranian parallel as far as plausibility allows - but of course Catholicism has a much broader global scope than Shi'i Islam, which has consequences.

I admit that I underestimated the clout that Catholics had in the USA at the time - which I shouldn't had, because you right - heck, Kennedy.

I will try to defend my scenario later on in detail, but this will have to be intended assuming its basic implausibility. In all likelyhood, no probable turn of events could fulfil the OP anyway.
 
His OTL's self was arguably as radical as them if not more on some matters.

I was raised a Catholic, in a conservative family but in post-Vatican II times. I formed my own opinions and from my point of view there was a lot of logic in attempting to "baptize" Marxism, as it were. The Gospels and Acts seemed clearly to point toward something like a humane form of Communism. Heck my parents even said so--stressing the importance of the belief in and submission to the will of God of course. On the other side of things, though I never actually read Thomas Aquinas I suspect Karl Marx did, quite a lot.

And from an American political point of view there are elements of the Catholic Catechism that look like what our mainstream political dialog would call "socialist." That's silly of course; we're just so right-wing in our ideology that anything that breathes a word of consideration for the poor gets called that.

But in the decades after Vatican II the Curia has gotten more and more firmly reactionary; from that point of view I suppose the words would be "vigilant" and "diligent" but the upshot is a major crackdown on what might have made the Church look progressive. There are still a lot of left-wing Catholics in the world but that's because people learn to selectively ignore what they are being told.

Fundamentally, of course, Marxism is anathema to Christianity in general because it is atheistic. In addition to that, which a Liberation Theologian might pass over as a tragic error of Marx's and 19th century radicalism in general, I believe the Church is deeply patriarchal whereas the radical humanism of Marx is in principle committed to gender equality. On this point of course the various Leninist regimes of history have been pretty hypocritical, whereas I believe the Catholic Church is simply wrong on these matters. Finally the Catholic doctrines that have evolved are conservative in their commitment to the idea of private property, which again seems to me to rather ignore the implications of the Acts of the Apostles. With Paul of course the Fathers of the Church began reconciling Christian faith with getting along with the powers that be in the world, and so wedding Christian doctrine with the sort of exploitive social orders Marx and other 19th century radicals hoped to transcend.

So, if the issue of the existence of God and the truth of Scriptures and sacred tradition is settled in favor of the Church, but we then grant the possibility that the doctrines that have evolved to accommodate the Church to the world are subject to review and revision, it makes sense for me for a Catholic to find much of value in Marx and in organizing with a preferential option for the poor. The Popes of my lifetime and their high Curial bureaucrats very strongly object though, and not just to stuff that is particularly Marxist or rooted in notions of class revolution. They really don't like feminism either.

So, a world where political events somehow drove the Curia to reexamine things and start to view Marxism in a new light, to "baptize" it and assert that the majesty of the Church stands for a major reorganization of the world order on a bottom-up basis--it would be hard to explain it, and such a movement would surely lead to major schism, with more reactionary Catholics electing their own Pope and so forth. But I don't think it's alien to the possibilities of Catholicism.

Again though, the consequences would hardly be limited to Italy. All of Southern Europe would be in turmoil as would the USA and indeed most of the Western Hemisphere. If these things were happening in the 1950s, when the conversion of many South Americans to various Evangelical sects was less far along, it might lead to a major revival of the importance of Catholicism there and in Central America, even Mexico--reclaiming the grass roots was of course the very foundation of Liberation Theology OTL, and South America was the place, faced by this very challenge of people leaving to join evangelical churches instead. Because it would affect US society very directly American politics would be caught up in it from the beginning; a very strong New Left could emerge transforming the role of the West's main superpower, or reactionary fear of that very thing happening could lead to heavy-handed repression, presumably the USA would become the seat of the reactionary wing of Catholicism.

So the OP scenario might happen, but it would be a sideshow!:p
 
Top