The more I read of the Left's twisted view of Conservative Christianity, the more ignorant they seem.
(1) Josemaria Escriva was not a Carlist. He did not support the claims of Javier I, the Carlist regent.
(2) TFP is not a Catholic organization.
(3) The Carlist opposition to the Bourbon monarchy's plan to confiscate Church property and sell it for the benefit of the monarchs' own treasury was hardly "theocratic."
Looks like the Catholics have their own "Dominionist" strawman now (snicker)....
Apparently "God, King and Country" is suspicious when it is said in Spanish instead of English.
And Fueros is the most interesting - it means respect for the rule of law as enacted by local communities: i.e. subsidiarity or federalism.
The Bourbon monarchy in Spain stood for an all-powerful nationalist state which controlled the Church and overruled all local communities.
Opposing the Bourbons was apparently madness when the Spanish did it, but heroism when the French did it.
Interesting.
Say what?
I've been reading First Things for years. I've never gotten a single hint that RJN is any kind of monarchist.
I've read several of George Weigel's books, op-ed columns, and heard him speak. I've never gotten a single hint that he's any kind of monarchist.
Ridiculous article.
The Carlists began as traditionalists, that is, seeking to continue what they perceived as traditional culture in Spain, including both the monarchy, traditional ways of life (this was at the dawn of industrialization) and a central role for the Church as the arbiter for human beings against the State and maintainer of the values of Spanish life. However, it was largely a world that had never existed; the State was very hostile to the Church off and on throughout the 19th century, and in fact, in 1836, had seized all Church property, expelled religious from their convents (including elderly nuns who had spent all of their lives as cloistered religious, and literally died along the roadsides as they trudged to seek shelter), expelled religious orders from the country and supressed their schools and even closed the simple village schools often run by the parish priest.
The climate in Spain was quite tense, but it had not been provoked by the Church; it was provoked by the imposition of the ideas of the "ilustrados" or "afrancesados," that is, people adopting French Enlightenment ideas and practices.
The Carlists eventually ended up as small militant bands in the north of Spain, in the Basque Country, where there was considerable social disruption and many bloody battles were fought. Oddly enough, the Franciscans were involved in the fighting. Eventually, partially because of their more militant turn, they lost support, and some of their members formed other types of Catholic conservative organizations.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Marxist and anarchist thought became influential in Northern Spain, and the conservative Catholic political parties found themselves with new enemies, whom they fought through political campaigns. Eventually, with manipulated elections and the general social instability brought on by political assassinations and terrorism, the whole delicate balance collapsed in the 1930s, with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.
Interestingly, some of the Basque Carlists were very involved in Basque nationalism and were quite radical; by the 1960s, Basque nationalism had become a Marxist movement, and ETA emerged as a fully left-wing group. But there is some historical connection between the remnants of the Carlists and the rise of Basque radical nationalism.
As for Escriva being a "Carlist," that's ridiculous. Opus Dei's theory is anything but monarchist, instead stressing social responsibility.
TFP is a bunch of people who tie their ties too tight and appear in Spain as groups of men wearing red capes and pounding on drums and has no official Church support and little or no unofficial support, either.
This whole article is just an attempt to distort and discredit.
This whole article starts out with a historically-correct account of the people associated with Triumph, and as livius states, tries to distort the truth and discredit modern-day conservative Catholic leaders.
As for what livius says about the TFP ("TFP... has no official Church support and little or no unofficial support, either."), he isn't too far from the truth. They definitely don't have the resources of Opus Dei.
Earlier this year, they had a large campaign against the Da Vinci Code movie, and I participated in their street protests in the DC area. A bunch of bishops supported their campaign as well. Since then, they have had a few "e-protests" against anti-Catholic activities across the country, and I signed the associated petitions. They're among the very few (including the Catholic League) that draw attention to such activities. I've heard the wacky things about them as well, but they don't seem to have much documentation. If it's true, why would Archbishop Burke and Fr. Trigilio have anything to do with them?
It looks like Mr. C has become an authority worthy of citation by the tinfoil hat crowd.
Submitted by Kety on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 6:43am. Mar 16 2006 - 10:43am
CrossLeft community,
I am pleased to announce that Frank L. Cocozzelli has joined the CrossLeft Leadership Team. Frank is a private practice attorney residing with his family in New York City. He has become involved in politics, first through advocacy for enlarged embryonic stem cell research and currently on issues of progressive faith. Frank is currently finishing up his first book, By the Better Angels of Our Nature, which is a plan of action for a reinvigorated centrist liberalism. He is a graduate of Queens College CUNY as well of the CUNY Law School at Queens College.
But there still exists among theocons such as John Neuhaus the pre-Vatican II belief that all faiths other than Catholicism are erroneous and that the liberties of these other faiths should not be protected equally.
These don't seem right. I thought Neuhaus was specifically talking about the refusal of the state to protect the unborn with Roe v. Wade when he made his controversial speculations about American government, not about pluralism or religious liberty. Moreover, I am pretty sure that Neuhaus supports the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty. I would not have pegged him as particularly "pre-Vatican II". If the author seems wrong about Neuhaus, it seems likely he is wrong about a lot of other things.