WI: Pinochet Starts his own Church

[EternalCynic]

Which is partially why I put the pod after the USSR was collapsing. But aside from that, while Catholic countries did condemned the assassination what was the Pope's response at the time?

Óscar Romero - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

During his first visit to El Salvador in 1983, Pope John Paul II entered the cathedral in San Salvador and prayed at Romero's tomb, despite opposition from the government and from some within the church who strongly opposed Liberation Theology. Afterwards, the Pope praised Romero as a "zealous and venerated pastor who tried to stop violence." John Paul II also asked for dialogue between the government and opposition to end El Salvador's civil war.

If the dictatorships were to survive the 80's without communism to scare the church than something is going to give. Either the pope is powerless and the autocrats are the true word of God (meaning whatever they say it it), or the Pope tries to protect his flock putting the dictators in an awkward situation where they either step down or call the Pope wrong.

But Latin America in the 80s wasn't Early Medieval Europe, where the word of the Pope (when there was one) held sway over the legitimacy of rulers. Back then, the Holy See could declare entire nations under interdict, which would give license for the subjects to rebel against the ruler, or even for another nation to invade it.

 

[Kaiser Tito]

Óscar Romero - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ireland, UK, US, but didn't see anything about the Vatican.

Edit: Reread you're post and noticed his call for dialogue. My mistake.

But Latin America in the 80s wasn't Early Medieval Europe, where the word of the Pope (when there was one) held sway over the legitimacy of rulers. Back then, the Holy See could declare entire nations under interdict, which would give license for the subjects to rebel against the ruler, or even for another nation to invade it.

While obviously Protestant countries wouldn't care about what the pope had to say, was the reformation so traumatic that not even Catholics had to listen either? I always thought the entire point of Europe's religious conflict for 300 years was whether or not the Pope's authority mattered. If the Pope is meant to be the sovereign over the Catholic faith, than his physical land shrinking to a city state should've had no effect on his influence.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Not to be rude, but I take it you're not Catholic (spiritually or culturally)?

I'm not really sure how to talk you through some of this stuff without knowing where you're coming from.

 

[CHKeeley]

was the reformation so traumatic that not even Catholics had to listen either? I always thought the entire point of Europe's religious conflict for 300 years was whether or not the Pope's authority mattered. If the Pope is meant to be the sovereign over the Catholic faith, than his physical land shrinking to a city state should've had no effect on his influence.

I would say that, while in spiritual matters Papal authority was a very prickly question in the conflict, when it came to the temporal powers of the Papacy, things got a hell of a lot more complicated. Even in the Middle Ages, it wasn’t like the Papacy held some life-or-death power over rulers. Things were heavily dependent on who the Pope was and on what time period we are talking about. Hell, the Great Western Schism is emblematic enough of the politics that splintered Papal power at various points. Either that or Charles V’s sack of Rome that hardly was motivated by spiritual concerns given his devotion to maintaining Catholicism. Ultimately, as most things are, the temporal power of the Pope was tied to a lot more factors than just “does he officially command the faithful” and varied heavily from different periods and popes. It’s not quite so simple as “If you are Catholic you obey the Pope in all things” because the Pope is also a politician. Which is what was happening in Latin America in this period. They were devout Catholics, but as long as the Pope didn’t make too much of a fuss you could ignore him a little. He might complain, but he didn’t wield the same temporal power that he once did. Given the Cold War context, he’s not gonna go around excommunicating prominent right-wing Catholics either.

 

[Kaiser Tito]

Not to be rude, but I take it you're not Catholic (spiritually or culturally)?

I'm not really sure how to talk you through some of this stuff without knowing where you're coming from.

I describe myself as a nondenominational Protestant Socialist (my religion and politics are very intertwined not unlike Catholic Liberation theologists) with a curiosity towards Lutheranism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. Hope that helps.

snip

Thankyou for explaining. But while anti-communism was an acceptable excuse for the church during the Cold War, would there have been any reaction if during the 90's the dictators decided that they liked being in power (and successfully keep it, that part's important) and continued the atrocities for the next fifteen years after the soviets fell?

 

[Bigby]

Pinochet would probably be more hated on the internet nowadays, especially in Tradcath circles.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

I describe myself as a nondenominational Protestant Socialist (my religion and politics are very intertwined not unlike Catholic Liberation theologists) with a curiosity towards Lutheranism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. Hope that helps.

Right, so the thing is: The Pope is respected by Catholics. Sometimes the Pope is loved by Catholics. Sometimes the Pope is despised by Catholics, or treated with contempt. And often, the Pope is ignored.

Pope Francis is despised and ignored by traditionalists. He is loved and ignored by the rest of the flock.

This does not mean he lacks power; the Bishop of Rome has a pulpit to preach to the entire world. But even people who genuinely venerate il papa, people to whom Catholicism is a core part of their identity- well, there's over a billion Catholics and they don't live the same way.

Catholics fuck out of wedlock, use condoms in wedlock, get divorced, attend gay weddings, have abortions. They still consider themselves Catholic even when the Church doesn't. Equally, Catholics don't suddenly care about climate change or refugees or capital punishment just because the Church does. It is not that the Church is unimportant in their lives; its teachings may lead to all kinds of feelings of guilt or conflict or the desire to resolve the way they live with with the advice of their priest. But there is a vast gap between what being a Catholic is supposed to mean and what it actually means.

That's been the case for centuries.

This is why, in Latin America, Liberation Theologists and hardline ultramontanans could each consider themselves devoted Catholics while supporting secular movements that were quite violently opposed to each other.

If the dictatorships had continued in the nineties, then the rhetoric might have changed somewhat from anti-communism to anti-socialism- or possibly not. But nothing would have sparked a formal split in the Church.

To take a different region, consider the Philippines: the Church there, under Jaime Cardinal Sin, eventually swung against the Marcos dictatorship. When it aligned itself against the Duterte regime, the right-wing populists insulted the Pope's manhood- and its Catholic supporters shrugged and didn't change sides.

 

[htgriffin]

I think the core POD is more along the lines of 'WI the late 20th century Catholic Church upper hierarchy did more to denounce anti-communist/notationally catholic tyrants?' In that case, the question of how much it would take for the tame local clergy to not even pretend to pay attention to Rome is an open one.

 

[Kaiser Tito]

snip

Thank you. As a fairly religious person I've always believed that you either believe in what you say you do or you don't. The idea of a Catholic not taking the Pope seriously (especially the very political ones during Francis) felt like a contradiction and left me in a state of confusion for the last few years.

I think the core POD is more along the lines of 'WI the late 20th century Catholic Church upper hierarchy did more to denounce anti-communist/notationally catholic tyrants?' In that case, the question of how much it would take for the tame local clergy to not even pretend to pay attention to Rome is an open one.

What I meant was for Pinochet to overstay his welcome from the church but that question is a pretty good one.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Thank you. As a fairly religious person I've always believed that you either believe in what you say you do or you don't. The idea of a Catholic not taking the Pope seriously (especially the very political ones during Francis) felt like a contradiction and left me in a state of confusion for the last few years.

No, no, the Pope is taken seriously. He's just not always obeyed.

To use an analogy from a faith I'm not a member of, and I hope that this isn't offensive, there are plenty of Jews who don't keep kosher, don't go to Temple, are a bit lax on the observance of the holidays but nonetheless consider themselves Jewish and would bridle at the suggestion that they weren't.*

All the people I'm describing are Catholic. They just don't agree they're all Catholic.

When the Pope speaks to a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, he is a very serious figure- even though most of those people will, to some degree or another, no follow all the Church's teachings in their personal or political lives. That doesn't make the Church or its leaders trivial.


*Yes, the complexities of Jewish identity- ethnicity and religion- don't translate well, it's just a rough metaphor.

 

[Kaiser Tito]

I think the core POD is more along the lines of 'WI the late 20th century Catholic Church upper hierarchy did more to denounce anti-communist/notationally catholic tyrants?' In that case, the question of how much it would take for the tame local clergy to not even pretend to pay attention to Rome is an open one.

Since I like this idea does anybody want to add to this?

 

[brunohusker]

After the 1988, rather than surprisingly accepting it as otl, Pinochet refuses to step down and starts a white terror campaign to cement his rule and wipe out further opposition. The Catholic Church goes from criticizing the dictatorship to actively opposing it and does everything short of excommunicating the regime.

Say that Pinochet takes a page from Henry VIII and rather than get back in line, he starts a Chilean church that follows his social-Darwinist principles and is loyal to only him. How different could the church get from mainstream Catholicism? Would it resemble the Anglican church in any way? Would he be content merely leading the church or would he go all the way and prop himself up as the messiah to be worshipped like the Kims in North Korea?

Honestly he’d end up pissing both the left and right off as well as all Catholics ranging from Latin mass traditionalists to liberation theology adherents. What’s more likely is that he says he is becoming more religious and aligns with more traditional Catholics. Maybe he even starts attending a schismatic sspx chapel ( side note, the Society of St Pius X or sspx is a group of Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass and are uberconservative and have even had a Holocaust denying bishop in their ranks.) However all it would do is ruin Catholicism in Chile.