The Red Catholics

Faraday Cage

POD: Instead of openly proclaiming Cuba communist and seeking the shelter of the Soviet Union, Castro uses the Catholic religion to temper the new socialism and expose Batista's regime as an immoral dictatorship. By inviting the US in to view the evidence rather than start killing off the Batista-ists outright, a two-party government (Castro's "Catholic Socialists" and the US backed "Democratic Cuba") is recognized by the US and gives internationally observed trials for the lot. Republicans accuse Kennedy of being soft on Communism when Catholicism comes into play, but a precedent is set and the spread of Catholic Socialism through Latin America (Che unleashed) is frowned upon by the US but seen as a buffer and preventive of the Soviet Union spreading influence in the Americas. Castro's party eventually becomes the minority one but remains influential in government and pervasive throughout Cuban culture and day to day goings on.

The Mexican Catholic Socialist party becomes an influential minority party in Mexican politics as well.
 
Personally I kinda doubt this. Communism and Socialism have traditionally been enemies of the Church. As soon as Castro took power the pope excommunicated him after all.
 
The Church has condemned outright "socialism" or totalitarian control of populations, but is comfortable with social market democracy. Pope Benedict himself endorses the latter scenario. So it depends on what kind of "socialism" you're talking about. I don't think the Church would bat an eye over universal healthcare or even a moderate food dole, as long as the people had universal sufferage, could operate within a free-trade economy, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy could operate unfettered. A Catholic social democratic balance to a US-friendly democratic party might produce results that would preserve Cuba's Catholicism and bring the US closer to Cuba.

However, should the US make overtures to take Cuba for itself, expect the Church to run into a conflict of interest. Modern Rome (i.e. of the past half-century) has tried to steer clear of injecting herself into party politics. Clergymen are prohibited from sitting in legislatures, for example. The US might take the Church's reluctance to resist a US takeover as acquiescence.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
POD: Instead of openly proclaiming Cuba communist and seeking the shelter of the Soviet Union, Castro uses the Catholic religion to temper the new socialism and expose Batista's regime as an immoral dictatorship. By inviting the US in to view the evidence rather than start killing off the Batista-ists outright, a two-party government (Castro's "Catholic Socialists" and the US backed "Democratic Cuba") is recognized by the US and gives internationally observed trials for the lot. Republicans accuse Kennedy of being soft on Communism when Catholicism comes into play, but a precedent is set and the spread of Catholic Socialism through Latin America (Che unleashed) is frowned upon by the US but seen as a buffer and preventive of the Soviet Union spreading influence in the Americas. Castro's party eventually becomes the minority one but remains influential in government and pervasive throughout Cuban culture and day to day goings on.

The Mexican Catholic Socialist party becomes an influential minority party in Mexican politics as well.
POD fails. You've changed the entire beliefs of socialism into the alternate history equivalent of pond-scum. Socialism/Communism and Religion don't work together, and the series of events you pose are impossible. At the USA wouldn't care who was the dictator in Cuba, as long as he bowed to US wishes, which were mostly from American companies dominating the country. It doesn't matter what evidence is or matters, the USA just wants a good little dictator friendly to US interests. Pretty much everyone knew Batista was a corrupt ruler, but the US of A propped him up.
 
IIRC, though, when Castro kicked out Batista he wasn't actually wedded to Communist all that strongly. I think the issue would be that the USA didn't want a strong and independent Cuba, but a colony in all but name like they had under Batista.
 
Castro was extremely popular ion the USA, so if he had found an ideological basis that did not make Washington run in cicles like a headless chicken screeching 'We're all gonna die!' would have helped. THe US government would very likely have supported him as a local strongman, and loved him to death as a democratic leader, provided he did not hurt their interests too much. Even something like the Mexican brand of leftism would have worked well.

The problem is that while Christian Democracy would have worked well, Catholic Christian Socialism - probably popular with the Cuban masses - would havbe been anathema to the church of the time. People tend to forget what kind of institution the Catholic church was back then. The ideal form of government according to the Vatican was not Federal West Germany (Catholic to the core and strongly wedded to the current interpretation of 'Social teaching'), but Francoist Spain.

Castro as Cuba's Caudillo woiuld work for Washington and Rome, but I doubt it would work for Castro.
 
Socialism/Communism and Religion don't work together

Bull. Crap. The tenets of some major religions are implicitly socialistic, Christianity most prominent among them. Catholicism not supporting socialism is more of a result of its organisation being opposed to losing what scant political power it had, rather than out of any real doctrinal reasons. There was even a movement within grassroots Catholicism that supported socialism and related social-justice initiatives. It was perhaps its strongest in Latin America, which definitely played a role in the large number of socialistic movements in strongly Catholic countries of that region.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that while Christian Democracy would have worked well, Catholic Christian Socialism - probably popular with the Cuban masses - would havbe been anathema to the church of the time. People tend to forget what kind of institution the Catholic church was back then. The ideal form of government according to the Vatican was not Federal West Germany (Catholic to the core and strongly wedded to the current interpretation of 'Social teaching'), but Francoist Spain.

Precisely, Carlton. At least you're being honest about the Francoist-Catholic axis in the decades before Vatican II. I wish the Vatican 'fessed up about that, but B XVI went ahead and canonized martyrs to the fascist cause :confused: I'm sure both the SSPX and Opus Dei (strange bedfellows) still want Francoist Spain back, but that's OT. :p Anyway, the problem with a clerico-fascist state is that the Church always "loses" to those under oppression -- many (most) Spaniards detested Franco but were muzzled, and his death caused an anti-clericalist outpouring and a string of socialist governments. Now the Vatican supports the German model, which probably would have been good for the Cubans and the Spaniards.

Has the Church changed its view on the "ideal government" because of Vatican II documents like Dignitatis Humanae, which called for the necessity of popular soverignity and religious freedom? Or, did it change simply because of the instability of clerico-fascist regimes and the inevitable backlash of people against clericalism? Nevermind the fact that fascism is always based on some sort of national or religious ethos that simmers with hatred towards one group or another, and that certainly goes against Christian ideals.
 
With the right rhetoric, you can make everything happen. And Castro was a master of rhetoric. If Castro would have argued, that Jesus was also against capitalism (He threw the traders out of the temple or his Sermon on Mount), maybe he would have been more symphathetic to catholics around the world. And maybe Cuba would have had more chances of not getting an embargo by the US, because they didn't allign with the USSR.
 
Bull. Crap. The tenets of some major religions are implicitly socialistic, Christianity most prominent among them. Catholicism not supporting socialism is more of a result of its organisation being opposed to losing what scant political power it had, rather than out of any real doctrinal reasons. There was even a movement within grassroots Catholicism that supported socialism and related social-justice initiatives. It was perhaps its strongest in Latin America, which definitely played a role in the large number of socialistic movements in strongly Catholic countries of that region.

It doesn't matter whether they are socialist or not, I will agree with you that Catholicism is somewhat socialistic in nature but Communists and Socialists have and probably will always display themselves as enemies of religion.
 
There were several Catholic movements aligned with socialists or influenced by their ideas. The Maryknollers, and Liberation Theology, both big throughout the region (and even in the southwest US).

The problem wasn't so much with the church hierarchy as with the landed elites and the military. Once Catholic priests started speaking up for even mild reforms, they got branded as Commie and were killed by the thousands. In El Salvador the military spread slogans like "Be a patriot, kill a priest" and "green on the outside, red on the inside like a watermelon". Green was the color of the Christian Democrats.

The other problem is that Cubans just aren't very strong Catholics, generally. Most Cubans didn't get married in the church even before Castro came to power, for example. Heck, most didn't (and don't) get married! Couples just live together.

Most Cubans are much stronger believes in Santeria. They do see themselves as Catholics and Christian within that context, but any movement by Castro would have to reach them thru that faith.
 

Faraday Cage

Santerian Socialism in Cuba, Vodoun Socialism in Haiti, Candomble Socialist minority party in Brazil...even the saint worship in Mexico is somewhat santeria/voudoun christian esque.
 
Remember that Batista was overthrown by a broadly left/democratic coalition led by Castro who was then part of the Orthodox Party and again broadly socialist.

The problem arrises that even within his 'moderate' origins, Castro and his allies support nationalising key industries, a move popular throughout the 'Third World' at the time. This pisses off the Americans, and with most of the Caribbean and South America pro-Yanqui at this time, a (possibly rightly) paranoid, power-hungry Castro sees the Soviets as his only chance of retaining control.

Unless the White House is willing to fob off US Companies and accept such nationalisation, Castro and Uncle Sam will not be friends.
 
Top