A few times I've been reminded that the Catholic Church is no longer the oppressive and obscurantist institution that it used to be, the implication being that the Vatican has somehow seen the error of its ways and reformed itself. After all, didn’t they apologize for the Crusades, the Inquisition and anti-Semitism?
I don’t think the Vatican relinquished its grip on power and its tyrannical ways because it wanted to. It did it because it had to. It had no choice.
Through the centuries, the Catholic Church has suffered a series of blows from which it never fully recovered, either political or military blows that eroded its temporal power, or discoveries and ideas that challenged its dogmas and beliefs.
Off the top of my head: the protestant reformation, the Enlightenment, the French revolution, Darwinism, the unification of Italy, socialism and so on.
I may be wrong on this, but I believe that the Church would still be burning heretics if it could. I say this for two reasons. First of all, it’s important to remember that the Church fiercely and bitterly fought and opposed every single one of the aforementioned movements.
But also, if we look at history, we see that tyrants, dictators and oppressive governments have never willingly and spontaneously given up power. Why would they? Power is addictive, intoxicating and, if unchallenged, self-perpetuating.
And the Vatican had to apologize for the Crusades, the Inquisition and anti-Semitism because public opinion was already light–years ahead of them, and it would’ve made them look really bad if they hadn’t apologized.
But instead of the things that they did do, I’d like to talk about the things they didn’t do.
First example. The Atlantic slave trade went on for about 300 years, during which it’s estimated that about 12 million people were enslaved (of which 1.5 million died on board of the ships before reaching the Americas), plus another 4 million who died inside Africa during and after capture.
To say that the Church’s opposition to slavery was, at the very best, lukewarm, is an understatement. The Church always differentiated between “just” and “unjust” forms of slavery (unjust being the enslavement of someone who’s been baptized), only condemning the second but never the first. In fact several Popes owned slaves themselves.
The classic response from Catholics is this: “That was the general attitude at the time, what seems wrong to us now didn’t seem wrong back then.” That’s not true.
There was opposition to slavery, from quite early on, opposition which grew slowly in different places at different times, but it was never encouraged (let alone initiated) by the Church. Quite the opposite.
The Vatican excommunicated missionaries that called for the emancipation of slaves in the Americas, and books that were critical of slavery were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
As late as 1866 (three years after Lincoln had abolished slavery in America) Pope Pius IX said that it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged (which makes sense, given that the Old Testament has no problem whatsoever with slavery).
Luigi Sturzo (a Catholic priest and a political activist) was right when he pointed out that, regarding slavery, the Church’s change of attitude followed its legal abolition, it did not precede it. Once again, the Church was at least one step behind civil society, as always.
But let’s assume, hypothetically, that the whole world was in favour of slavery. Would that excuse the church? I think not, and I’ll explain why at very end.
Second example. In a Christmas message in 1942, broadcasted by Vatican Radio, Pope Pius XII mentioned “the hundreds of thousands of people who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline”. I give the Pope credit for that.
But things were about to get much worse for Jewish people in Italy. With the fall of Mussolini in September 1943 (who, has to be said, had resisted Hitler’s requests of deporting Italian Jews to Germany), German troops invaded Italy and occupied much of the country.
On Saturday 16th October 1943, a date that has become infamous in history of the city, the Nazis raided the Jewish ghetto in Rome. In November 1943 it was the turn of Genoa and Florence. Thousands of Italian Jews were rounded up and deported.
While all of this was happening right under his nose (Rome’s Jewish ghetto is a stone’s throw away from the Vatican, just across the river), the Pope had nothing to say.
Just imagine what could’ve been. It’s Sunday, the very next day. San Peter’s Square is full of people, all of them well aware of what’s been going on. The Pope could’ve come out on the balcony and could’ve shouted: “Giù le mani dagli Ebrei!” (“Hands off the Jews!”).
Instead, nothing. (He probably gave some sermon about the Holy Ghost, or the importance of prayer, or some other such nonsense.) As the expression goes, his silence was deafening. I understand that, had the Pope spoken out, it wouldn’t have stopped the Nazis. But that’s not the point.
Isn’t the church supposed to give moral guidance to the whole of mankind? Isn’t it supposed to lead humanity when it goes astray? Isn’t that their main purpose, their very raison d'être? They can’t even do that.
