AHC: Populist Catholicism

I have to admit I'm struggling to wrap my head around this one, is it what wikipedia calls 'phenomenological Thomism'? From my understanding, it says that each person ought to be treated with love and respect due to their intrinsic value and goodness coming from God, and that treating others and ourselves in this way helps us to grow further. Is this correct? Seems to be that the movement was first started by Dorothy Day, so how can we help her to reach a wider audience?
I was thinking more of the branch of the movement started by Emmanuel Mounier. No clue how to get it to gain mass appeal.
 
To use the OED's definition, populism is "A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." I wouldn't say that this is the same as the Catholic Church's universalist approach, as members of the aforementioned established elite groups are excluded from this populism. But let's not get wrapped up in definitions and stuff anywhoo

This is getting to the edge of my expertise. I would say that I think you almost need to go back to the Council of Trent. In other words at Trent the Church adopted a strong reactionary perspective (in response to calls for reform by Luther, Calvin et al). As a result the church becomes strongly intertwined with the absolute monarchies and as such liberals become naturally become anti-clerical. I think the idea of a church that is more open to liberal thought is a most interesting idea. One very interesting potential POD is the possibility that Cardinal Pole was nearly elected Pope in 1549. He had fairly reformist tendencies and might have been able to lead Trent in a different direction. He was also the 2nd cousin of Henry VIII (and arguably had a superior claim to the English throne).

I'm hesitant to agree we need to go back that far. Wasn't Trench more of a confirmation of previous beliefs than a realigning of or change in Church views? Or am I missing something? I must admit I know little to nothing of Cardinal Pole. What might it have taken to get him elected and what might his Pontificate have looked like? A quite glance at his wiki page says that he believed in 'faith alone' and that he suffered accusations of heresy. Could he have prevented the Wars of Religion and reversed the Reformation? Seems like a tall order had he been elected in 1549. I have my suspicions that he would have made the Church more populist by making them more Protestant. Are Catholicism and populism really mutually exclusive?

As stated earlier Pius XI could have been a very different pope. The events of 1848 scarred him personally for life. He might have been more open to change and that could trickle through his successors, if he hadn't been forced to flee Rome.
I suggest he gets extra militairy protection from another country, as a precaution. There had already been a wave of revolutions in 1830, and maybe a sovereign was wise enough this could happen again after the first revolts in 1848. Neighbouring kingdom of two Sicilies is not an option for this, as it was already embroiled into a revolution in Sicily. I was thinking of Spain. Not only did that country remain revolution free, but that country helped in 1849 to quell the revolt in Rome.
I also want to point you toward the interesting case of catholic politics in my own country in the 19th century. The Catholic elites and representatives in the south of the Netherlands, where there is a catholic majority, were around 1848 absolutely not opposed to Liberalism. On the contrary, a coalition with the liberal forces meant an official restoration of the Church Hierarchy as part of the freedom of religion principle. It was only after that goal was achieved in 1853 and the growing demand in catholic circles for catholic education that there was a break with the liberals. When there became an official catholic party at the end of the 19th century, there were stil within this party many differences. You had a reactionary wing and a social wing (heavily influenced by Rerum novarum) and in between the moderates. After WO I this party, RKSP, started to dominate Dutch politics. With some regional exeptions they got near 100 % of the votes in the two provinces in the south and some other catholic areas.

So how can we avoid 1848? I think that might just be late enough that many of the poor are still religious and ideologies which might compete (primarily communism imho) haven't become fully entrenched yet. I think if he uses military means from the start, it both sends a power message and sets him up for having to face revolutionaries later on. Sure, he might have a relatively liberal pontificate, but I don't think you can build a truly liberal movement on a foundation of Spanish bayonets. In the long run, things won't truly change. How can he win over the Roman populace without force of arms?

Concerning the RKSP, how can we get their Christian democracy to become more widespread and entrenched across Europe? It seems to me that it did not really get going across Europe until after WW2, by which time other populist ideologies, like socialism and communism, were too entrenched to be displaced.
 
I was thinking more of the branch of the movement started by Emmanuel Mounier. No clue how to get it to gain mass appeal.

I think the easiest way for Mounier's personalism to have a stronger showing in the 1930s and become a serious populist contender is to undermine communism. Perhaps the excesses of Stalinism become public knowledge much earlier or maybe Stalin dies shortly after the 1932 Soviet Famine and the USSR collapses, leaving communism/socialism viewed as a failed ideology. Then personalism is free to begin to make inroads among left-wing intellectuals of the period and eventually among the masses. The only question is why would they go Christian as opposed to something else? I think an outside threat is necessary, and with communism gone that leaves fascism. Perhaps ITTL we have Hitler and Mussolini who are rabidly anti-Catholic rather than anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik. Catholic countries are the first into the fray in the ATL WW2 and bear the lion's share of the casualties during the fight (I'm thinking a personalist-controlled France, Poland, and a less fascist Spain). During the conflict, the Church, facing annihilation, organises resistance groups across occupied Europe, the Pope fleeing into exile at some point during the war. Afterwards, Christian democracy is seen as the victor over fascism, and with communism previously discredited, leads the charge against the excesses of American capitalism during the latter half of the 20th century.
 
Concerning the RKSP, how can we get their Christian democracy to become more widespread and entrenched across Europe? It seems to me that it did not really get going across Europe until after WW2, by which time other populist ideologies, like socialism and communism, were too entrenched to be displaced.
The RKSP is not that exeptional, their big example was Zentrum, the german catholic party. There were to my knowledge also in Belgium and France catholics that thought in this direction. Quanta Cura came as a shock for all these, and that has delayed the formation of catholic peoples parties for years. I see Quanta Cura mainly as a reaction on the loss of the papal state. But i haven't a clear idea yet how to avoid Quanta Cura and certainly part of the Sylabus of Errors. There must come some Concordate between Piedmont (a.k.a. future Italy) and the Pope. But i can't see how, without giving Rome to Italy. Avoiding 1848 is still harder, so i wouldn't go that way.
 

Md139115

Banned
@Md139115 I knew both of those things, but never made the connection. I salute your mental agility.

Not mental agility, just a long residence in both worlds and pondering on what is similar/dissimilar. The worst thing one can have when in a debate with others is an inherent contradiction in viewpoints, thus internal consistency is a big concern of mine.
 
Top