Francisco Franco

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948358' date='Aug 13 2009, 08:17 PM']Ok I see what you're saying. I disagree with Religious Freedom in a Catholic nation. I don't believe that in a Catholic nation that non-Catholics should be permitted to publicly promote/practice their faith. In private, fine do whatever you like. But not publicly where it may corrupt the faithful.

[color="#FF0000"]You do realize that throughout the history of Catholic Europe that the faithful have been corrupted while non-Catholics were protected uneuqually under the laws, right? In the gospel reading for this past week, Jesus told the crowd to whom he was preaching that it isn't what one puts into his body that defiles him, but what comes out of him that does. Satan wants to bring man down with him, Catholic nation or not. If we have a Catholic theocracy in which non-Catholics don't have equal rights, Satan will go to work regardless. I'm still not buying the prevention of corruption argument. [/color]

I don't think we'll be able to agree regarding Franco if we disagree on this point.

[color="#FF0000"]Probably not. I don't like tyrants, Catholic or not.[/color]

Though it should be noted that Pius XII congratulated Franco on his victory and it seems supported him.

[color="#FF0000"]As I said, Pius XII was wrong. Popes have done far worse things, why should this be excused? He enabled a tyrant which, in my opinion, is one of the most anti-Catholic things you can do. Since below your avatar, you claim that you're Roman Catholic yet it also says that you "don't rep pope", can I guess that you're a member of the Society of Saint Pius X? If that's the case, do you realize that in a Catholic theocracy without equal protection, you'd be outlawed because your views would then be corrupting the faithful? [/color][/quote]

[goldenchild17]

I'd prefer to quote your post as to give it more detailed response but having trouble with the way you're formatting it so just going to have to do this. I disagree and will side with Pius XII over yourself on this one. Am I part of the SSPX? No, and yes I know that my opinion would be outlawed if the Church today effected the policy I'm proposing for Catholic nations. But I don't live in a Catholic nation so I doubt I would be affected. and I don't have any worries or concern that this law would be put in effect as long as I am in disagreement with Rome. And I don't know where you're coming up with Catholic theocracy. Their are a number of government formats in which the Catholic faith could be preserved and protected, not sure why you mention a theocracy as its not relevant, Franco was not a religious.


Finally, to get back on track to Franco. Why do you consider him a tyrant? Specific examples would help.

[goldenchild17]

Here let me address it this way. We are not going to agree on Religious Liberty no matter what I think. So somehow we need to move on from that in discussing Franco so let me ask you this:

Do you believe that Religious Liberty was defined and established before Vatican II? I'm not going to argue about Vatican II here. Let's just assume that Religious Liberty was a doctrine that naturally developed out of Catholic Tradition and became public during Vatican II. In the case of Francisco Franco I believe it can be established that he was hard on non-Catholic religions in his country before Religious Liberty became a defined belief. And then after the 1960's he relaxed his policies somewhat.

If this can be established, then there is no case for calling him a tyrant on the grounds of religious liberty because he was simply following the religious tradition of his time (i.e. no freedom for non-Catholic religions in a Catholic state/country).

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948370' date='Aug 13 2009, 09:57 PM']I'd prefer to quote your post as to give it more detailed response but having trouble with the way you're formatting it so just going to have to do this. I disagree and will side with Pius XII over yourself on this one. Am I part of the SSPX? No, and yes I know that my opinion would be outlawed if the Church today effected the policy I'm proposing for Catholic nations. But I don't live in a Catholic nation so I doubt I would be affected. and I don't have any worries or concern that this law would be put in effect as long as I am in disagreement with Rome. And I don't know where you're coming up with Catholic theocracy. Their are a number of government formats in which the Catholic faith could be preserved and protected, not sure why you mention a theocracy as its not relevant, Franco was not a religious.


Finally, to get back on track to Franco. Why do you consider him a tyrant? Specific examples would help.[/quote]

For convenience of argument, I like to go point by point. I'll go about it the following way to be more convenient.

1. Well, given that the reign of Francisco Franco was not technically a "theocracy", I apologize for my misuse of the word and will refrain from using it again. I'll instead refer to the establishment of a state religion, that being Catholicism.

2. Speaking of a government format in which Catholicism would be protected, I thought there was a Republican Democracy somewhere around here...

3. Well, since I don't know a ton about his policies, though I do know that many died under his regime, I'll start with that. Any despot wouldn't kill his own subjects. A tyrant who wanted to keep his power and used violent force to do so, in my opinion, would be a tyrant. Also, anyone who denies equal protection under the law of the land to non-members of the state religion I would also consider tyrannical.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948384' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:10 PM']Here let me address it this way. We are not going to agree on Religious Liberty no matter what I think. So somehow we need to move on from that in discussing Franco so let me ask you this:

Do you believe that Religious Liberty was defined and established before Vatican II? I'm not going to argue about Vatican II here. Let's just assume that Religious Liberty was a doctrine that naturally developed out of Catholic Tradition and became public during Vatican II. In the case of Francisco Franco I believe it can be established that he was hard on non-Catholic religions in his country before Religious Liberty became a defined belief. And then after the 1960's he relaxed his policies somewhat.

If this can be established, then there is no case for calling him a tyrant on the grounds of religious liberty because he was simply following the religious tradition of his time (i.e. no freedom for non-Catholic religions in a Catholic state/country).[/quote]

Well, I didn't bring up Vatican II; you did. Vatican II actually never crossed my mind in thinking about my opinion on Francisco Franco or dictatorships in general.

As for religious liberty being defined before Vatican II, yes, it was. It's not a doctrine, it's a defining principle of human existence. We've always followed the path that we wish to follow because we have God-given free will. As I said before, the Church harbors those who wish to follow Jesus fully to salvation safely. It doesn't make sure everyone's doing everything exactly right because it can't. According to Catholicism, there is only one path and that is Christ and to get on that path, you really need his Church; I believe this. The Church may have defined religious liberty for themselves for purposes of use in her documents to better portray her meaning, but religious liberty has always meant that you practice the faith that you wish to practice.

[CatherineM]

My Godfather ended up in the US because of Franco, so I guess that was a positive for me. I'm sure his family would have preferred to stay in Spain though.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948425' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:16 PM']1. Well, given that the reign of Francisco Franco was not technically a "theocracy", I apologize for my misuse of the word and will refrain from using it again. I'll instead refer to the establishment of a state religion, that being Catholicism.[/quote]

And you think that at this point in history that this shouldn't be the case in a Catholic majority nation?

The 77th error condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors is the proposition that:

“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.”



[quote]2. Speaking of a government format in which Catholicism would be protected, I thought there was a Republican Democracy somewhere around here...[/quote]

The US doesn't have a Catholic majority so there's no point in comparing or relating it somehow to this discussion.


[quote]3. Well, since I don't know a ton about his policies,[/quote]

This is a first red flag. Don't you think it would be slightly important to know what the man did in order to have such a strong opinion of him?

[quote]though I do know that many died under his regime, I'll start with that. Any despot wouldn't kill his own subjects. A tyrant who wanted to keep his power and used violent force to do so, in my opinion, would be a tyrant.[/quote]

This is your strongest possible argument and I think I know where its going, but you need to provide the stats that you are referring to. I have a feeling they aren't as cut and dry as you think.

[quote]Also, anyone who denies equal protection under the law of the land to non-members of the state religion I would also consider tyrannical.[/quote]

Well he was from an age in which this wasn't yet the policy of the Catholic Church. He was simply following the Church's laws in this regard. Was the Catholic Church of the 50's and before to be considered a tyranny of religion?

[Norseman82]

Is STILL dead!!!

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1948431' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:30 PM']My Godfather ended up in the US because of Franco, so I guess that was a positive for me. I'm sure his family would have preferred to stay in Spain though.[/quote]

Why would they have preferred to stay in Spain?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948439' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:39 PM']Why would they have preferred to stay in Spain? [/quote]

They probably wanted to live in a country where Catholicism was the state religion.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948439' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:39 PM']Why would they have preferred to stay in Spain? [/quote]

I've heard quite a few testimonies of people who were very happy and supportive of Franco while they were living there during this time. I'll pull up a few if you wish. Again, revisionist history ignores much of this reality.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1948434' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:36 PM']And you think that at this point in history that this shouldn't be the case in a Catholic majority nation?

The 77th error condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors is the proposition that:

“In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.”[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're going with this.


[quote]The US doesn't have a Catholic majority so there's no point in comparing or relating it somehow to this discussion.[/quote]

Why would the US need a Catholic majority to be relevant to the discussion. I'm saying that the country in which we are able to go to websites like this and have open discussions about controversial topics is an amazing country and a great alternative to having your rights abridged in a dictatorship in which your life is in the hands of one man.


[quote]This is a first red flag. Don't you think it would be slightly important to know what the man did in order to have such a strong opinion of him?[/quote]

I don't have a strong opinion of him. I'm arguing mainly against the idea that anyone who is a dictator who established Catholicism as the official state religion should be looked up to simply because he established Catholicism as the official state religion. Francisco Franco along with any other dictator in my book can't be trusted and I don't think that system of government in itself is a good idea.

[quote]This is your strongest possible argument and I think I know where its going, but you need to provide the stats that you are referring to. I have a feeling they aren't as cut and dry as you think.[/quote]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not going in the direction in which you think it's going. I don't really think that stats matter. Any dictator, a man who steals power for himself, who spills the blood of his subjects to keep his power is a tyrant.


[quote]Well he was from an age in which this wasn't yet the policy of the Catholic Church. He was simply following the Church's laws in this regard. Was the Catholic Church of the 50's and before to be considered a tyranny of religion?[/quote]

You say this as if nothing is quite true until the Church says it is. The Church is outspoken in its position of religious freedom today. Does it just put a knife through your chest to admit that the Church was wrong about a man that you admire?

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1948441' date='Aug 13 2009, 11:43 PM']They probably wanted to live in a country where Catholicism was the state religion.

[/quote]

That still doesn't answer the question of why he ended up in the US [i]because[/i] of Franco. If they wanted to stay because Catholicism was the state religion, then why leave becasue of the man who made it so?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1948439' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:39 PM']Why would they have preferred to stay in Spain? [/quote]

They lost their land and had to flee. They went from Spain to Cuba to Mexico then Texas.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1948452' date='Aug 14 2009, 12:02 AM']They lost their land and had to flee. They went from Spain to Cuba to Mexico then Texas.[/quote]

Really now? If you don't mind my asking, do you know how they lost their land? And why did they have to flee for losing their land. Most people would simply live as servants to another land-owner on their land, would they not? Or wouldn't they? I'm just curious as to why they would HAVE to leave Spain as, it seems, refugees.