Would it be possible to have a Christian Republic in present-day Europe similar to OTL Iran?

This - basically Dev refused requests to have Catholicism become the state religion - either have him go down his road to Damascus of cultural conservatism, have someone else within FF come to power, or have Cosgrave remain in power and continue his rapprochement with the Church - then such an idea could be possible.

I would add that Ireland is unlikely to have a situation in Ireland where women are punished for showing ankle - yes have extremely conservative social and moral values, but I think that even that is a stretch too far. I would say that Francoist Spain is perhaps the closest to such a 'Christian Iran' that is possible in Europe without drastic changes from a PoD.
Both Ireland and Spain can go very far, but going more catholic than the Pope always runs a big risk of the Pope going 'nah, that is beyond the pale'. If you've built your whole political power structure on the catholic religion (rather than Franco's more generic conservatives) that would probably shake your state to the core.

And the Pope, obviously, has to respond or risk losing the rest of Catholic Europe if the fundamentalist state goes too far.
 
Both Ireland and Spain can go very far, but going more catholic than the Pope always runs a big risk of the Pope going 'nah, that is beyond the pale'. If you've built your whole political power structure on the catholic religion (rather than Franco's more generic conservatives) that would probably shake your state to the core.

And the Pope, obviously, has to respond or risk losing the rest of Catholic Europe if the fundamentalist state goes too far.

But what if in that country there is a strong body of opinion that is literally more Catholic than the Pope? There have been hyperconservative Catholics who questioned or even repudiated the authority of the Pope when the Pope issued modernizing and liberalizing directives. Some of these have become effectively schismatic.

Suppose that such a group "caught on" in Spain, or possibly Portugal, and the dictator was converted to the movement. Let's further assume that the "modernizing" element in the local Church was critical of the dictatorship. Add some supporting atmosphere: the current Pope is a heavy-handed reformer; the local hierarchy is divided between old, weak seniors (some of whom are caught up in financial scandals), clever-dick modernizers (some of whom decide they can be unchaste but get caught), and a hypertraditionalist cadre that are "hard-chargers", including one highly charismatic preacher.

Push comes to shove: a schism, with the local Church hierarchy accepting the formation of an autocephalous national "New" Church which is rigidly traditional. The old dictator is assassinated by a Rome-loyal Catholic with the connivance of some pro-Rome clerics. The new dictator is energetic, a devout New Church man. He pushes a purge of Romists from the Church, and funds an intense campaign of preaching and propaganda to entrench the New Church with the people.

The end is a ferociously traditionalist quasi-Catholic country with rigid public morals enforcement.
 
But what if in that country there is a strong body of opinion that is literally more Catholic than the Pope? There have been hyperconservative Catholics who questioned or even repudiated the authority of the Pope when the Pope issued modernizing and liberalizing directives. Some of these have become effectively schismatic.

Suppose that such a group "caught on" in Spain, or possibly Portugal, and the dictator was converted to the movement. Let's further assume that the "modernizing" element in the local Church was critical of the dictatorship. Add some supporting atmosphere: the current Pope is a heavy-handed reformer; the local hierarchy is divided between old, weak seniors (some of whom are caught up in financial scandals), clever-dick modernizers (some of whom decide they can be unchaste but get caught), and a hypertraditionalist cadre that are "hard-chargers", including one highly charismatic preacher.

Push comes to shove: a schism, with the local Church hierarchy accepting the formation of an autocephalous national "New" Church which is rigidly traditional. The old dictator is assassinated by a Rome-loyal Catholic with the connivance of some pro-Rome clerics. The new dictator is energetic, a devout New Church man. He pushes a purge of Romists from the Church, and funds an intense campaign of preaching and propaganda to entrench the New Church with the people.

The end is a ferociously traditionalist quasi-Catholic country with rigid public morals enforcement.
But at that point, why not start with a protestant country rather than making it so as part fo the story?
 
For a Christian theology in Europe, I would look east towards Belarus. Secular or religious and left or right, Belarus has little democratic tradition and currently functions under a "President for Life". Now, to move Belarus to the religous right. Maybe:

- The road to independence is rougher and involves rioting between Nationalists and Unionists with a stronger Russian orientation. Though the Nationalists "win" in that Belarus gains independence, they are spooked. They desperately need something to unify Belarus.

- The answer they find is Orthodoxy, the dominate religion of both the Nationalists and Unionists. The Belarusan constitution provides for recognition of the traditional religions of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. Protestants are left out- too independent and too western.

- Orthodoxy gets a big dose of state subsidies. Abortion, porn and divorce are not outlawed per se (the wise Belarusian leader does not want total isolation), but all three are very difficult to legally obtain. Right wing nationalists readily accept the new social policies. Unionist right wingers do as well as the driving feature is an autonomous branch of Russian Orthodoxy. Nobody cares what the liberal secularists think.

- One of the unique features of the State is that Orthodox bishops are members of Parliament automatically. Likewise, Orthodox bishops can offer formal advisory opinions to the President and an Orthodox bishop is head of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.


- Of the accepted religions, only Catholicism is of any real size and most of its adherents are ethnic Poles. To avoid jitters amongst the Poles, a wise Belarusan leader guarantees that Catholic / Polish areas keep the historical ratio between Catholic and Orthodox institutions. The fact that many Catholic priests support the new Orthodox policies on social issues helps as well.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
For a Christian theology in Europe, I would look east towards Belarus. Secular or religious and left or right, Belarus has little democratic tradition and currently functions under a "President for Life". Now, to move Belarus to the religous right. Maybe:

- The road to independence is rougher and involves rioting between Nationalists and Unionists with a stronger Russian orientation. Though the Nationalists "win" in that Belarus gains independence, they are spooked. They desperately need something to unify Belarus.

- The answer they find is Orthodoxy, the dominate religion of both the Nationalists and Unionists. The Belarusan constitution provides for recognition of the traditional religions of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. Protestants are left out- too independent and too western.

- Orthodoxy gets a big dose of state subsidies. Abortion, porn and divorce are not outlawed per se (the wise Belarusian leader does not want total isolation), but all three are very difficult to legally obtain. Right wing nationalists readily accept the new social policies. Unionist right wingers do as well as the driving feature is an autonomous branch of Russian Orthodoxy. Nobody cares what the liberal secularists think.

- One of the unique features of the State is that Orthodox bishops are members of Parliament automatically. Likewise, Orthodox bishops can offer formal advisory opinions to the President and an Orthodox bishop is head of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.


- Of the accepted religions, only Catholicism is of any real size and most of its adherents are ethnic Poles. To avoid jitters amongst the Poles, a wise Belarusan leader guarantees that Catholic / Polish areas keep the historical ratio between Catholic and Orthodox institutions. The fact that many Catholic priests support the new Orthodox policies on social issues helps as well.
Personally, I think it is a bit unlikely. Interbellum Romania is a far better candidate to become an Orthodox Theocracy.
 
But at that point, why not start with a protestant country rather than making it so as part fo the story?

None of the Protestant countries of Europe have ever had the sort of religious fervor required, at least not in a very long time.

Also, IMHO a radical swerve into extreme religiosity would come in part as a reaction to radical secularism. In Spain, for instance, the Reds were violently anti-clerical - during the Civil War, they burned churches, and executed thousands of priests and hundreds of nuns. However, the Right was not dominated by religious figures, and so the post-Civil War regime remained secular.

In Iran, the Ayatollah and his accomplices rode a wave of reaction against the Shah's regime, which was authoritarian but also modernizing. Anger at the regime's brutal methods was conflated with rejection of its goals - which were often clumsily chosen. All this was grist to the Ayatollah's mill; by leading opposition to all this, he made religion the apparent basis of opposition, and in the disorder after the fall of the Shah, his henchmen grabbed control of the state.
 
Top