american catholic dissenters and the spanish civil war

8/2/2019 American Catholic Dissenters and the Spanish Civil War

1/20

American Catholic Dissenters and the Spanish Civil War

Author(s): J. David ValaikReviewed work(s):Source: The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Jan., 1968), pp. 537-555Published by: Catholic University of America PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25018041 .

Accessed: 09/05/2012 15:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Catholic University of America Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The Catholic Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuaphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25018041?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25018041?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuap


2/20

The Catholic HistoricalReview

Vol. LIII JANUARY, 1968 _No. 4

AMERICAN CATHOLICDISSENTERS ANDTHE SPANISH CIVILWARBY

J. David Valaik*

When in 1936 General Francisco Franco and other rebelliousgenerals raised the standard of revolt against the Popular Front gov?ernment of the Second Spanish Republic and plunged that countryinto the maelstrom of civil war, American Catholics were faced witha serious dilemma. The anticlerical violence which had been sopainfully common during the Republic's short existence had alreadyaroused the resentment of Catholics and prejudiced many againstthat government, and now violent civil war involving issues of concernto all Catholics, perhaps even the very existence of the Churchin Spain, seemingly necessitated a choosing of sides. Were AmericanCatholics to uphold the Republican government; could they do soin light of the recent fate of the Spanish Church ? Or in attemptingto serve their religion, could they remain faithful to their own demo?cratic creed and endorse the Franco 'crusade,' a cause which enjoyedthe support of clerical reactionaries as well as fascists?

Most organs of Catholic opinion and organizations under theauthority of Church leaders had already abandoned the Republic,blaming it for the anticlericalism of the past few years and viewingthat government as merely a mask behind which the forces of an?archism, socialism, and communism were attempting to revolutionizeSpain. Influenced no doubt by the recent fate of the Church in

*Mr. Valaik is an assistant professor of history in Canisius College, Buffalo.537


3/20

538 AMERICAN CATHOLIC DISSENTERS & SPANISH CIVIL WAR

Mexico, which had endured a very damaging series of attacks bythat nation's left-wing revolutionary government, many of thesegroups uncritically championed the nationalist' cause of GeneralFranco as a nearly faultless crusade to preserve Iberia's ancientliberties and traditions, including the special place of the Churchin Spanish society. There were, however, significant voices of dissentwithin Catholic circles ;and though they were few in number and had

only limited influence on Catholic thinking, they were not withoutreason.

A dark and acrid cloud of violence blanketed the Spain of 1936where within one month following the outbreak of the civil warnearly 100,000 people were murdered by the forces of the right andthe left, including thousands of priests and nuns.1 Among theanguished American Catholics who beheld the carnage was FrancisX. Talbot, S.J., the editor of the Jesuit weekly, America. A fewdays after the outbreak of the struggle Father Talbot called a meetingof Catholic editors to discuss recent events in Spain and to decideupon a common editorial approach to the war. At that meeting,which was attended by an agent of Franco's junta, was George N.Shuster, managing editor of The Commonweal, a weekly magazinepublished by Catholic laymen.

With the smoke of the first battles still beclouding the many issuesand personalities involved in the war, Shuster advised his felloweditors to reserve their judgments and to refrain from expressinghard opinions until the situation could be studied more carefully.Shuster thought it wise to speak with an informed source beforereaching any conclusions, and at this time Jos? Maria Gil Robles,the leader of the Catholic forces in the republican Cortes, was ex?pected to visit the United States in the near future. To this judiciousproposal Talbot and the others in attendance agreed, and Shusterreturned to his office to pen The Commonweal's first editorial on thecivil war.2

Completelyunaware of the hornets' nest he would upset, Shuster

warned The Commonweal's readers that sunny days for Spain werevery distant. That land's problems were many and deep-rooted,and he doubted the ability of the "military cabal" which had revolted

1Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (New York, 1961), p. 142.2 Interview with George N. Shuster, University of Notre Dame, August 2,1961.


4/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 539to resolve those problems. To the young editor this was "only anightmarish incident."3 A few days later America issued its firstcommentary on Spain's war, and Shuster learned that Father Talbot,without warning and contrary to their verbal agreement, had placedAmerica solidly behind the rebel legions.

America argued that the Republican government of Spain was inreality a communist government guilty of so many crimes againstits citizens that its overthrow would be a blessing not only forSpain but for world civilization. The Jesuit weekly carefully pointedout that its hope for

avictory of the "Right army" did not implyapproval of a future fascist state, and without benefit yet of thebrutal lessons to be learned from Nazi excesses, the Jesuits expressedthe belief that a "Right" victory could never result in greater disastersthan those already perpetrated by the "Red" government. There?

fore, the good of Spain demanded the total defeat of the militaryand political factions of the "United Communist Front."4 It is notclear why Father Talbot, a romantic poet rather than an educatedstudent of world politics, took this hard and uncritical stance fromthe first, but he was known to be enamored of monarchism and underthe influence of Franco supporters throughout the war years.5 Further?

more, Jesuits were deeply concerned with Spain because theirSociety had borne the brunt of much anticlerical violence and hadbeen dissolved, and its property seized, by the republican govern?ment. Regardless of motives, battle lines were being drawn in theUnited States as well as in Spain.

The laymen of The Commonweal answered America's Jesuits witha ringing call to beware of fascism in Spain. Fascism, they insisted,was the direct antithesis to the radical social reforms needed inSpain, and though the fascists would publicly oppose the anticlericalforces of the government, they would not liberate the creative socialenergies of Catholicism. Aligning themselves squarely against thepartisan Jesuits, The Commonweal's staff, under Shuster's leader?ship, concluded that there was no reason "for stridently applaudingthe present rebels."6 The lessons of history were too plain for that.

3The Commonweal, XXIV (July 31, 1936), 323.4 "Perils of a Communist Victory in Spain," America, LV (August 8, 1936),420-421.

5 Interview with John LaFarge, S.J., New York, April 24, 1962.6 "Murder in Madrid," The Commonweal, XXIV (August 28, 1936), 414.


5/20


Soon The Commonweal's office was deluged with critical letters,and pressures on the magazine mounted. Shuster was attackedfor giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church; and fromLondon a Jesuit heatedly rejected the American journal's use of theterms "Rebels" and "Loyalists" to describe the combatants in Spainand suggested "Patriots" and "Reds" as more objectively descriptiveof the contending forces.7 In a letter which accurately expressed theposition of the majority of Catholic publications at this date, onepriest explained the issues involved in the Spanish war quite simplyfor the edification of The Commonweal's confused staff : the civil warwas "a life and death struggle . . . between all that Catholics helddear and savage enmity to these things, between Christian civiliza?tion and Communism in its most stark and brutal form."8 Criticismfrom higher authority was also felt when John T. McNicholas, O.P.,

Archbishop of Cincinnati, banned the sale of The Commonweal in allchurches under his jurisdiction, and the chancery of the Archdioceseof New York began to exert a variety of pressures to reverse themagazine's stand.9 The circulation level of The Commonweal beganto drop dangerously ; clergymen in particular cancelled subscriptionsin large numbers.

At this moment in its history, The Commonweal had only approxi?mately 15,000 subscribers, and in the midst of the great depressionits finances were precarious. Its very existence depended on financialcontributions of interested parties other than subscribers, and whenthese backers began to tighten their purse strings the magazine'seditor and founder, Michael Williams, was forced to reconsider thework of Shuster and others who shared his views.

Williams, an advisor to Governor Alfred E. Smith in the ill-fatedcampaign of 1928, had been greatly disillusioned by the violent anti

Catholic forces at work during that time and had launched The Com?monweal project with a sense of mission, to unite American Catholicintellectuals with the mass of the faithful. Now in poor health, hefaced the absolute ruin of his creation and the failure of his missionunless The Commonweal swung into line with the rapidly closingranks of the pro-Franco Catholic establishment.10

i Ibid. (September 11, 1936), 467; (September 18, 1936), 488.8 Ibid., XXV (October 30, 1936), 22.9 Interview with Edward Skillin, former editor of The Commonweal, NewYork, December 27, 1961 ; interview with George N. Shuster.10 Interview with Carlton J. H. Hayes, Binghampton, New York, August9, 1961.


6/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 541Shuster, on the other hand, could not remain with the magazine if

Williams insisted on his demand for editorial reversal. With Europeanwar clouds thicker and more ominous than ever, he feared that theSpanish struggle would only hasten the outbreak of a major inter?national war. Furthermore, he viewed Franco as the leader of an"anti-worker invasion" with strong fascist underpinnings which wasbound to alienate further the mass of Spanish Catholics from theChurch. Though he viewed his association with The Commonwealas a vocation, hoping to make it his life's work, he felt compelledto leave its staff in order to maintain his sense of intellectual in?tegrity.11 It seems, therefore, that Williams, in order to save hiscreation, had in fact done tangible damage to his mission, for inforcing Shuster's resignation he could hardly be said to be furtheringan understanding between Catholic intellectuals and the mass of thefaithful.

The changes in The Commonweal's approach to the Spanish horrorcame gradually as more tales of anticlerical atrocities filled its columns.Cloistered religious were reported to have been slaughtered in amanner suggestive of the Iroquois Indians or the much malignedTurks; "lawless gutter rats" were said to be roaming the streets ofCatalonia in murderous pursuit of nuns and clerics; and finally TheCommonweal expressed agreement with the majority opinion of theCatholic press when it argued that the "so-called Republican govern?ment was really in the hands of the Reds."12 It thus became apparentthat Shuster's views no longer predominated in the offices of TheCommonweal, and one intelligent voice of Catholic criticism andmoderation was temporarily silenced. As a voice of dissent, TheCommonweal was to remain silent for a time, but it would return toits critical posture later, as will be seen. Another voice of dissent,

however, persisted throughout the course of the Spanish war, that ofThe Catholic Worker.While Catholic magazines and papers vied with each other in effortsto make General Franco's Nationalist 'crusade' acceptable to their

readers, The Catholic Worker condemned every aspect of his revoltand would not be silenced. While the Jesuits of America were proudlyclaiming that they had "upheld the Franco tradition" from the be

11 Interview with George N. Shuster.12 "Horror in Spain," The Commonweal, XXIV (September 4, 1936), 435;ibid., 443; "Relics of the Whirlwind," ibid. (October 16, 1936), 569.


7/20


ginning and had been the first to designate his movement as National?ist, the Holy Cross Fathers at the University of Notre Dame pro?tested loudly in their publication, Ave Maria. "Almost every issueof 1937 and 1938 . . .has defended the Rebel cause," the Notre Dame

publication claimed, "and we have not taken our direction fromAmerica's broadcast." Furthermore, Ave Maria rejected America'schoice of the term "Nationalist" and consistently referred to Francoas a rebel : "we like it better because it has the sanction of George

Washington, Toussaint L'Overture, and the Irishmen of Easter,1916." Was not Christ a divine rebel?13 These competitive effortsto identify Franco with Washington, even with Jesus, found no

place in The Catholic Worker.The Christians of the Catholic Worker movement, led by the

former Communist Dorothy Day, shared the sense of tragedy regard?ing Spain, but to them the issues were hardly stark black and brilliant

white, as usually portrayed in the Catholic press. Spain to them wasa horrible tableau wherein the members of Christ's mystical bodywere tearing at each other with sinful abandon. The Catholic Workercould not choose sides. There was too much right and too muchwrong on both sides, and in words echoing the spirit of the earliestChristians, they pleaded with the few thousand people who boughttheir penny paper to forget their anger: "... love your enemies; dogood to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute andcalumniate you."14 This message of love and Christian pacifism musthave seemed na?ve even in those days preceding the holocaust of

World War II, and it is most doubtful that its impact was great ;butThe Catholic Worker persisted in its rejection of force and condemnedthe violent acts of Spain's fascists as well as its communists.

In December of that first year an anonymous article appeared whichwas later attributed to the noted Spanish writer and educator AlfredoMendizabal. This famous Catholic argued that no person could takesides in this struggle which was threatening to destroy all that washuman in man, for in so doing he would renounce his independence,the mark of a Christian, and subject himself to the leadership of menwho had "unpardonably lost their reason in the ocean of theirpassions." Condemning the destructiveness of anarchists and syndi?calists, and arbitrary Sovietism, he also rejected the popular Crusade'

"America Alone," Ave Maria, XLVII, N.S. (April 30, 1938), 556.14 'The Mystical Body," The Catholic Worker, IV (September, 1936), 4.


8/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 543concept as contrary to God's commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill."Further setting himself apart from some extreme American Catholicswho lauded Franco's employment of Moroccan legionnaires, Mendizabal spoke with great indignation against "ferocious Moorish soldiers,disciples of Mohammed, with the insignia of the Sacred Heart pinnedto their tunics as they came to kill Spaniards." Also rejected were thepopular young Carlists of Franco's army, men who adorned them?selves with large crucifixes and died shouting for God and Country."Is it 'for God' also that they kill ?" asked Mendizabal.

One could not choose in Spain. One should not choose. As Mendi?zabal saw it, the future held one of two things in store for that country.He agreed with the generally held Catholic view that a governmentvictory would leave Spain at the mercy of anarchists and communists,but he disagreed regarding the consequences of Franco's success.This man was a dictator, who had "begun by folding up the arms ofthe true cross, by deforming the sign of salvation in order to turnit into a sign of oppression," and his victory might save Spain fromcommunism but only at the cost of reducing it to the status of aninstrument of fascist imperialism.15For its stand on the Spanish War, The Catholic Worker was sub?jected to many bitter attacks from Catholic quarters, but neither

Father Charles E. Coughlin's charge of "pussyfooting" nor threatsagainst Miss Day's life could silence its voice.16 The questionablemotives of the Franco-Nationalist faction, the violent excesses whichaccompanied its advance, and its association with fascist, antiChristian governments continued to concern the deeply dedicatedfollowers of the Catholic Worker movement. Much to the satisfactionof most Catholic commentators, the Spanish bishops had recentlyreleased a collective letter affirming their faith that Franco's 'NewSpain' would not be patterned after any foreign model, but TheCatholic Worker persisted in dissent. With writers of undeniablerepute and with a catalogue of embarrassing facts, it was one of thevery few Catholic publications which gave serious attention to theimplications of Franco's alliance with the fascist powers.

Don Luigi Sturzo, the famous anti-fascist Italian cleric, warnedthat Franco's victory would bring a totalitarian government to Spainwherein Catalan and Basque minorities would be treated like Ger!5"A Spanish Catholic Flays Both Sides," ibid. (December, 1936), 1, 8-9.Ibid.,V (July, 1937), 1 ; ibid.,VI (June, 1939), 5.


9/20


many's Jews. Other writers pointed out that in Nationalist Spainthe pope's condemnation of racism had been ignored, but the antiChristian writings of Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher hadbeen translated and were widely circulated. It was also worthy ofnote, the Worker reported, that Franco's brother-in-law and Ministerof Interior, Ram?n Serrano Su?er, was openly enamored of NationalSocialism.17 With knowledge of those facts could any Catholic, anyChristian, support Franco's Crusade'? Even if the Loyalist govern?ment was the creature of atheistic communism, The Catholic Workerasked, could Catholics accept the Nationalists' alliance with fascists?

Was it a case of the lesser of evils ? Could Catholics now argue thatthe end did justify the means ?

Above the din of the clamorous Franco supporters one voice inthe negative was heard, much to the consternation of many AmericanCatholics. For Jacques Maritain neither the means nor the ends ofthe Franco movement were sacrosanct. In fact, it seems that Maritain

viewed Franco's ends as unrighteous. Seeing war as somethingnecessarily secular and profane, he could not accept the popular con?cept of a religious crusade; and although he was appalled by theanticlerical violence of the Loyalists, he was even more revulsed bythe mass executions attributed to the Nationalists. To execute one'senemies in the name of religion was sacrilegious. "It is anothersacrilege," he said, "to dress Mohammedan soldiers with the imageof the Sacred Heart so that they might kill holily the sons ofChristians and to claim to enroll God in the passions of a conflictwhere the adversary is regarded as unworthy of any respect orof all pity." The "Red Terror" was bad, he wrote, but Franco's"White Terror" was no better as it revealed "a rare and singularlyhigh level of cruelty and contempt for human existence." Spainwas a tragic spectacle, indeed : "it is as if the bones of Christ, whichthe executioners on Calvary did not touch, were being broken on thecross by Christians."18 Christianity would triumph by Christianmeans, he later warned, or it would be completely unmade.19

After a change in the ownership of The Commonweal, which willbe discussed later, the French philosopher's views were also to be17 Luigi Sturzo, "The Cost of the War in Spain," ibid., VI (September, 1938),

7; "Racism in Spain," ibid. (January, 1939), 2.18 Jacques Maritain, "Maritain on Spain," ibid., V (November, 1937), 4.19 Ibid., VI (January, 1939), 3.


10/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 545found in the pages of that weekly. Here he accepted the idea that

Catholic Spaniards could fight for Franco if they desired, but neitherthey nor their American co-religionists could canonize the politicaland social principles associated with his movement. Maritain alsoobjected strongly to the general's aerial bombardment of cities, onefacet of total war which few American Catholics condemned at thistime. "The thing which must exist, and must exist before every?thing else, and which we cannot forswear without losing all," he

wrote, "is our refusal to call evil good and good evil."20 Maritain'scriticisms were not without factual or theological foundation, butthis did not stop representatives of the Catholic press from attackinghim in a most bitter and seemingly un-Christian fashion.The Register of Denver, a nationally circulated paper, at first

expressed its inability to understand how Maritain could ignore theSpanish hierarchy's endorsement of Franco's Nationalists, but laterit explained his "decided partiality for the 'Loyalist' government" asdue to ignorance of the facts. Boston's diocesan paper, The Pilot,agreed with this opinion, but the Catholic Digest went further, sug?gesting that Maritain's anti-Franco stance resulted from his Frenchnationalism and a fear that the defeat of the Spanish communistswould deprive France of an ally against Hitler. Though not statedexplicitly, the magazine characterized the French philosopher as anignorant dupe of the communists who was more concerned with thesecurity of his nation than the fate of his Church. Ave Mariaaccused him of doing concrete harm to the Church by not denouncingthe anticlerical Loyalists and castigated him for giving scandal. Maritain, it wrote, was impervious to correction and beyond the reachof reasoned argument, and unless his position was accepted as thatof "an incredibly ignorant and misinformed commentator," then heshould be charged with being "un-Catholic."21

That charges such as these were made against one of the world'smost respected philosophers may appear shocking, but they were20 C. J. Eustace, "Maritain Looks at Franco," The Commonweal, XXVII

(February 4, 1938), 402; Jacques Maritain, "War and the Bombardment ofCities," ibid., XXVIII (September 2, 1938), 460.21 The Register (Denver), January 16, 1938, p. 4; William J. Canavan,"Is Monsieur Maritain So Very Impartial?," ibid., February 2, 1939, p. 4; "ASimple Question of Fact," The Boston Pilot, January 1, 1938, p. 4; JamesCleary, "Smoke Screen Over Spain," The Catholic Digest, III (November,1938), 31; "Maritain," Ave Maria, XLVIII (July 16, 1938), 86.


11/20


indicative of the deep emotional distress suffered by so many Catholicleaders during these years. Nowhere, however, did Maritain's casecause greater discomfort and anger than among the Catholics as?sociated with The Tablet of Brooklyn. Faithfully opposed to allwho did not endorse the Franco movement wholeheartedly, TheTablet opened its doors to Monsignor Edward Hawks of Phila?delphia, who attacked Maritain acrimoniously. His views were notimpartial, Hawks argued; they were "notorious." Repeating thecharge that Maritain's motives were those of a French nationalist,the monsignor accused him of parroting the "Red" critics whenhe took issue with Franco's employment of Moorish troops. If thephilosopher's criticisms had caused any doubts in Catholic readers'

minds, Monsignor Hawks advised them that Maritain's views couldand should be ignored.22 Many readers of The Tablet must haveagreed, for letters favorable to Hawks were received in great number,but Maritain was not without his defenders.

Dr. Harry McNeill, a graduate of Louvain and a professor atFordham University, argued that this finest of living Catholicphilosophers had "contributed mightily to the cause of truth andjustice." As to Hawks' approval of Franco's relationship with thefascists of Italy and Germany, McNeill expressed his vehement dis?approval of the monsignor's efforts to have Catholics embrace thetwo non-Spanish dictators as well as Franco. With a great respectfor history and papal authority, McNeill asked, "has Monsignor for?gotten 'Mit brennender Sorge' and the wounds of fascism that sad?dened the last days of our beloved Pontiff, Pius XI ?"McNeill thankedGod that the Spanish War was near an end, and he expressed thebelief that the de facto ruler should receive help in reconstructingSpain, but he refused to defend Franco's past actions and criticizedHawks and others for their shameful treatment of brave men who hadsuccessfully resisted partisanship. According to the Fordham profes?sor, the war had failed to resolve any of Spain's burning problems."It was simply a mad interlude," he said, "during which the nation'senergies were dissipated in slaughter and destruction."23

Monsignor Hawks' response was brief. For him the OsservatoreRomano's contention that Catholics could not be impartial towardSpain sufficed as a rebuttal of McNeill as well as of Maritain.24

22Edward F. Hawks, "Neutrality A La Mode, The Tablet (Brooklyn),February 11, 1939, p. 14.23 Ibid., February 25, 1939, p. 9. 24 jud., March 4, 1939, p. 9.


12/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 547But this was not the case with Edward Fenlon, a professor ofphilosophy in Brooklyn College. To Fenlon, Jacques Maritain wasnot the greatest living Catholic philosopher. Judging the qualityof a man's work by its bulk could be misleading, he warned, for by thatstandard even John Dewey was great. This comparison was obviouslythe most odious slur on Maritain's work that Fenlon could fabricateat that moment, but he stayed in the lists for a few final tilts.

Professor Fenlon not only expressed approval for the manner inwhich General Franco had conducted the war, including the bombingof civilian population centers, but he went so far as to defend fascism.That a Christian could make such a defense in these dark days of 1939,with anti-fascist papal encyclicals and evidence of Nazi cruelty nowavailable, may seem strange to some, but Fenlon plunged on. GeneralFranco had denied any fascist sympathy, and that satisfied theBrooklyn philosopher, but even if the general had avowed such tiesthat would not make him or his cause reprehensible. Fascism, Fenlonargued, had no fixed set of offensive principles but was as flexibleas monarchism or democracy. Fascist states were not atheistic inprinciple as was Communist Russia, and they could not really betotalitarian when they had been able to sign concordats with theChurch.25

Before McNeill could reply to these arguments, a new defendertook issue with The Tablet and Maritain's critics. Father HenryPalmer, a diocesan priest from Long Island, disputed Fenlon's claimsthat Franco was Christianizing the Spanish masses. Just the con?trary was true, he wrote, for in fact Franco's so-called holy crusadewas doing irreparable damage to the Church's apostolic mission. "Thesword," Father Palmer wrote, "does not convert. It kills the goodwith the bad. It wages against truth as well as error." Palmeralso rejected the now popular and comforting allegation that Maritain'sviews were those of a narrow nationalist and argued instead thatthe philosopher's case rested on a firm Thomistic base. St. Thomashad accepted the concept of a just war, but only on a number ofconditions, one of which was that no greater evil result from theconflict than that which had prompted it. According to FatherPalmer, the duration and tragedies of the Spanish War had provento be much more evil than the series of events which had prompted

25 Ibid.


13/20


the Nationalist revolt, and he warned that even greater evil lay aheadin the form of post-war totalitarianism.

Do you suppose that St. Thomas would justify slaughtering thesedeluded fools, no matter what their sin ?Would he countenance shootingthem to death with curses on their lips against God and the Church,when these deluded people might have been so easily brought backto the faith by a more sympathetic appreciation of their grievances anda more intensive manifestation of Christian charity? Would St.Thomas give his approval to the continuance of this war to the bitterend, when the misled, once-upon-a-time Catholics on the Loyalist side(if they survived) will have confirmed in their hearts a bitterness

against the Church they misunderstood?No !The evils far outweigh the good. St. Thomas would say "Nay."26

Father Palmer's conclusion was even bolder than the major portionof his letter, for he went so far as to chastize the self-righteous Tablet.He stated that its attacks on Maritain, Dorothy Day, and GeorgeShuster had made that paper responsible for leaving thousands ofAmerican Catholics with a false impression of these people. "ACatholic paper," he wrote, "which makes such frequent chargesagainst the unfairness of the Secular Press, might well examine its ownconscience, if it treats so badly an honorable adversary within theChurch itself."

For his efforts Father Palmer was buried under an avalanche ofletters from The Tablet's irate faithful, but their critical barbs failedto shake his confidence or his boldness, and much to the consternationof the paper's readers he returned to the battle.27 It is doubtful, how?ever, that Palmer's letters swayed many of The Tablet's readers andthe shock they created was nothing in comparison to the furor anddismay caused by The Commonweal's decision not to endorse theFranco crusade.

Following the termination of Shuster's association with The Com?monweal, its owner and editor, Michael Williams, shaped policy moreclosely

in line with the views generally accepted in Catholic presscircles. He himself accepted Franco's rebellion as entirely justified,though he did express some cautious reservations about the general'sparticular brand of democracy. As he casually dismissed Basque

26/M., pp. 8, 9.27Henry Palmer, letter to the author, June 11, 1962; The Tablet, March 18,1939, p. 9.


14/20

BY J. DAVID VAL AI K 549Catholic opposition to Franco as resulting from excessive nationalism,he also attacked the entire American secular press for its "deplorablyone-sided?and therefore false?picture of the situation in Spain."Every publication whose views differed from those of Williams wasaccused of "playing the Communist game, . . ."28 Williams alsoallowed such uncritical champions of Nationalist Spain as FatherOwen B. McGuire and Nena Belmonte to write for The Common?weal.29 At the same time, however, The Commonweal's treatment ofthe Spanish War gave some evidence of the editorial change thatwould come in 1938.

While Williams was engaged in his one-man battle against thesecular press, one Commonweal staff writer expressed his beliefthat in Spain the Reds were much too red and theWhites too white.It was obvious to this man that the real victims were the poor souls

who stood for moderation, wisdom, and democracy. Dictatorship,warned one contributor, "whether of the Right or Left, clearly in?volves a peril to the freedom of the individual and the Church."30Even the Basques, generally ignored or calumniated in most Catholicpapers, found defenders within The Commonweal's staff, and onewriter went so far as to compare Franco and Hitler :"Francoism yousee is basically pagan like Hitlerism, of which, as a matter of fact, it

is the younger brother."31Such significant differences of opinion within Commonweal's opera?tion could not go on forever. With Williams so enamored of the

Gallegan caudillo that he could be found at pro-Franco rallies ex?uberantly chanting prayers of St. Teresa in the aisle,32 the youngermen of his staff could no longer tolerate his control. Edward Skillin,

Harry Binse, Philip Burnham, John Cort, and others determined towin control of the magazine and reverse its policy on Spain.At first The Commonweal's young dissenters met privately at dinner28Michael Williams, "The Degradation of Democracy," The Commonweal,XXV (April 9, 1937), 657; Michael Williams, "The Truth About Spain

Open Letter to the Press: No. 2," ibid., XXVI (May 21, 1937), 858.29 Owen P. McGuire, "Peace in Spain," The Commonweal, XXVI (August27, 1937), 413-415; Owen P. McGuire, "The New Spain," ibid., XXVII(October 29, 1937), 5-8; Nena Belmonte, "Life in Nationalist Spain," ibid.,XXVI (October 15, 1937), 561-568.30 The Commonweal, XXV (March 26, 1937), 596.3i Ibid. (January 29,1937), 387.32 Interview with John LaFarge, S.J.


15/20


parties to talk with men like Maritain and to discuss their differenceswith Williams. Originally they contemplated publishing a privatemanifesto refuting his views on Spain, but respect for the man re?strained them, and finally it was decided to use all available fundsto buy him out. Williams, in poor health and depressed by the failureof a large pro-Franco rally in 1937, accepted the offer of his associatesand relinquished ownership of the magazine.33 Shortly thereafterthe new owners published their first editorial on Spain, a literaryendeavor that was not without effect within the American Catholicestablishment.

The new owners expressed their lack of faith in Franco as acrusader, their shocking conviction that his was not a faultless revoltagainst an anti-god, communist government. They were convinced,however, that relighting the war in this country among people whodid not have all the facts and who did not really understand theissues, was deepening the unfortunate divisions which already sepa?rated Catholics from their fellow Americans. At a time when the

United States was facing serious internal problems and the Europeansituation was obviously worsening, Catholics were battling theirfellow citizens rather than working with them. To resolve thesedifferences, to promote unity, The Commonweal opted for "positiveimpartiality" toward the Spanish War.34

On June 24, 1938, The Commonweal expressed its dissatisfactionwith both factions in Spain. One government had at the very leastpermitted the murder of countless numbers of priests, nuns, and laypeople and had employed ruthless methods to gain its radical ends.Furthermore, this government's alliance with Russia implied at leastsome degree of identification with the evils of the Soviet regime. Onthe other hand, the forces of the opposition, though openly supportingthe Church, had killed thousands of defenseless citizens by bombingcities?in spite of the Holy Father's protests?and its leaders haduttered totalitarian views quite similar to those condemned by theVatican in other countries.

Finally this opposition government'salliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany evidenced a degreeof identification with the evils of those regimes and was, therefore,suspect. Americans were obliged to alleviate the suffering of the

33 Interview with Edward Skillin.3* Ibid.


16/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 551Spanish people and to pray for peace, but they were to avoid unre?strained partisanship :

We feel that violent American partisanship on either side ... is bad,not only because the facts are obscure, but chiefly because both sidesinclude elements that no American wants imported into this country.

Neither has begun to enforce or even propound anything comparableto the bill of rights, which protects an individual from unbearable abuseof authority.35This violent partisanship only aggravated a current intellectual dis?

ease that The Commonweal abhorred, the idea that a choice had to bemade between fascism and communism. Sufferers perplexed by thechoice were, in fact, blinded to the truth, contended The Common?weal, for such a choice could not be made. Both systems were antiChristian and secularist. Americans were asked to stop labelling theiropponents as either fascists or communists and to avoid fostering thegrowth of totalitarianism and the hatred of Christianity by any activi?ties that even faintly encouraged the spirit of hysterical opposition andhuman distrust. "Peace can only come where there is good will, andwhere there is good will, the road is open to peace."36

The Commonweal might have been charged with na?vet? for theexpression of such views, but it could not have been accused ofcowardice, for, in fact, it was attacking Catholic partisans of Francoas well as American protagonists of the Spanish Loyalists. Suchdeviation from what had come to be virtually a Catholic 'party line'could not be tolerated, and The Commonweal suffered for its im?partiality. Letters advising its new editors to shut up shop, toend their 'queer' editorials, deluged its offices, and nearly one-fourthof the magazines' subscribers cancelled shortly after the publicationof this article. With no public support from Catholic leaders, TheCommonweal also had to endure the combined onslaughts of theoutraged Catholic press.37

The Jesuits of America accused the new editors of lacking intel?lectual courage and of being derelict in their duty (as Catholics) for

35 "Civil War in Spain and the United States," The Commonweal, XXVIII(June 24, 1938), 229.M Ibid.37According to Skillin, only two members of the American hierarchy sup?

ported the new position of The Commonweal, namely, George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago, and Edwin V. O'Hara, Bishop of Kansas City.


17/20


being impartial in relation to Spain's contending forces. Even FatherJohn LaFarge, who was not uncritical of the Nationalist movement,rejected The Commonweal's stand as "objective heartlessness." TheSign, a publication of the Passionist Fathers, saw Franco battlinghordes of communists and argued that the realities of the Spanishstruggle negated the right to be neutral. To the editor of Ave Maria,the men of The Commonweal had waded "chin deep in presumption,"and he expressed his preference for Franco's promises rather thanthe "guesses of Catholic gentlemen who act as if they have a divinecommission to headlight Catholic thinking."38 With the exception ofthe New World of Chicago, which viewed the Franco movement withsome reservation, diocesan papers also took up the sticks in anattempt to drum The Commonweal out of the Catholic ranks.

The Register of Denver accused it of comforting partisans of the"Red Spanish" government and scandalizing the faithful. Most out?raged, however, was The Tablet which attacked with a vengence. Thislatest piece only buttressed The Tablet's conviction that Common?

weal's output was the work of "muddled minds" and "willing-to-beliberal" Catholics. The Commonweal was not a Catholic weekly, itreported, and that magazine's recent editorials, as well as those ofThe Catholic Worker, were evidence that papers of that kind, notresponsible to Catholic authority, were a political threat to the Churchand an actual detriment to the cause of Catholicity.39 Similar chargeswere echoed by prominent Catholic leaders.

Father Coughlin, the famed radio priest, lamented the confusionwhich The Commonweal had wrought among the rank and file of"honest folk" who had heretofore been able to believe what theyread in the Catholic press. Now, however, The Commonweal, whichhe referred to as edited for the "silk-stocking class," had by its"pussyfooting" on Spain confused these good people. Coughlinadmitted that he would rather be taken for a fascist than a coward

S8"The Commonweal and the Spanish War/' America, LIX (July 2, 1938),292; John LaFarge, S.J., "While Spain Burns They Strum Impartially?Further Reflections on the Policy of Neutrality," ibid. (August 20, 1938), 462.The Sign, XVIII (August, 1938), 5. "The Nation Approves Commonweal,"Ave Maria, XLVIII (July 16, 1938), S7 ; "Certain Catholic Editors andLiterati," ibid. (August 6, 1938), 185.39 C. J. McNeill, "The Commonweal's Impartiality on Spain," The DenverCatholic Register, June 30, 1938, p. 4; "Good and Evil," The Brooklyn Tablet,January 21, 1939, p. 10; ibid., January 7, 1939, p. 6.


18/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 553who would disavow his martyred brethren in Spain. Long beforeThe Commonweal sinned, he concluded, "another man decided totake no sides between a regularly organized power and a martyr.

His name was Pontius Pilate. I do not believe that the gospels con?done him."40

Another extremely vocal critic was Father Edward Lodge Curran,an East-Coast counterpart of Father Coughlin and the President ofthe International Catholic Truth Society and the Triple A-C, ananti-Communist organization of his own creation. Curran who hada very large following in the New York City area went beyond con?demnation and suggested a positive course of action in response toThe Commonweal's sins :

If Commonweal is a Catholic magazine, then its pious refusal to growindignant over the butcherings by the Reds and their destruction ofreligious warrants a boycott by every Catholic reader and advertiser

worthy of the name. If The Commonweal is a secular magazine, asannounced in its recent reconstruction, then it has merely gone over tothe list of those journals in America which are so Left that theycannot see, even a millimeter of an inch, right of center. ... In eithercase The Commonweal shows itself unfit for leadership in the printed

word.41

Archbishop McNicholas, speaking before a national convention ofthe Knights of Columbus, argued that over 300,000 men and womenhad been butchered in Spain for their religious faith and that theirmartyrdom forbade neutrality. Only by "turning against Christ" couldThe Commonweal seek neutral ground, for there could be no neutralityin the face of atheistic communism, with its program of economicslavery and social reconstruction devoid of moral principles. John F.

Noll, Bishop of Fort Wayne, joined the anti-Commonweal chorusby pointing out that the magazine was "collaborating beautifully, evenif unwittingly," with the enemies of God and the state, a charge thatwas echoed by Monsignor Michael J. Ready, Executive Secretary ofthe National Catholic Welfare Conference, when he accused The Com?monweal of poisoning the well of Catholic action and following the"Red game" of creating confusion.42

40 Charles E. Coughlin, "More 'Common' Than Weal," Social Justice, III A(January 9, 1939), 8.41 Ibid.

42 John T. McNicholas, O.P., "There Is No Neutrality," Columbia, XVIII


19/20


In spite of such abundant and harsh criticism, much of it fromhigher authority, The Commonweal maintained its reason and itsintegrity. Greatly concerned with the nation's internal problems, itwould not consider the sides in Spain as "Black and White," asalmost all Catholic publications and bishops were wont to do. Thenew editors condemned the Loyalist cause, but they refused to endorsethe Nationalists, and they expressed deep concern for the Church "if

Catholics join party, in the eyes of a whole people and in the faceof the world, with revolutionary soldiers who only carry the daythanks to the support of Italian Fascism and German Racism." Fear?ing that the Church might be enslaved by the victors, The Common?weal insisted on "positive impartiality."43The few people associated with The Commonweal and The CatholicWorker were not the only Catholics who opposed the Nationalist'crusade' of General Franco, but the number of active Catholic

opponents of the Movimiento was not large. Professor Carlton J. H.Hayes, the noted historian and a convert to Catholicism, opposed themilitary rebellion as did most young Catholic professors at ColumbiaUniversity. This was also true at such schools as Hunter College,the University of Notre Dame, Georgetown University, and others.44There were very few vocal dissenters in clerical ranks, but evenamong the staunchly pro-Franco Jesuits there were a few mavericks.It seems safe to say that among Catholic intellectuals there was con?siderable anti-Franco sentiment but not necessarily much sympathyfor the Spanish Loyalists.

Given the temper of the general American Catholic reaction to theSpanish Civil War, these Catholic dissenters, especially the editorsof The Commonweal and The Catholic Worker who bared theiropposition to the public, knowing full well the weight of the burdenthey had assumed and the calumny they would endure, forged ahead,

(October, 1938), 4. John F. Noll, "Christian vs. Anti-Christian Front," OurSunday Visitor, August 7, 1938, pp. 1, 10. The Tablet, January 21, 1939, p. 11.^The Commonweal, XXIX (March 3, 1939), 508; for further comment on"impartiality" and Catholic attitudes on neutrality vis-?-vis Spain, see J.

David Valaik, "Catholics, Neutrality, and the Spanish Embargo, 1937-1939,"The Journal of American History, LIV (June, 1967), 73-85.44 Interviews with Carlton Hayes, George Shuster, and John LaFarge, S.J.,also with Matthew A. Fitzsimmons and Leo R. Ward, C.S.C., at the Universityof Notre Dame, June 6, 1962.


20/20

BY J. DAVID VALAIK 555nevertheless, in an effort which evidenced not only reason and a deepChristian spirit but also a stalwart faith in their convictions and con?siderable personal bravery. Strongly influenced by such EuropeanCatholics as George Bernanos, Fran?ois Mauriac, Jacques Maritain,and others, the American Catholic opponents of Franco expressed arevulsion for Loyalist excesses equal in intensity to the spirit ofFranco's supporters, but they would not take that one last, giantstep and endorse his 'crusade.' Though fully aware of the communistinfluence within the Loyalist government, they did not allow this toblind them to the sway of the fascists in Franco's circle, and unlikeso many other Catholics they correctly rejected fascism as well ascommunism as contrary to the dictates of Christanity and alien to

American democracy. With considerable prescience they warnedthat Franco's victory did not foreshadow a free Church in a freeState but a puppet Church in a dictatorial State, one whose powerswould be dangerously circumscribed by and manipulated in theinterests of a fascist government.

In warning of this danger these Catholic dissenters played a notable,if lonely, role within Catholic press circles, and it cannot be doubtedthat their writing shaped the thinking of at least some Catholics whowould not give their wholehearted support to Franco in spite of theheavy propagandistic efforts of the Catholic press in general.45 TheCatholic Worker's pacifism and The Commonweal's plea for a negoti?ated peace were hardly overpowering in their appeal and, indeed,revealed some na?vet? when considered in the light of the times ;butregardless of these charges and others which could be leveled againstthese journals, such as their isolationist spirit, the unwillingness ofthese dissenters to champion uncritically the Franco cause was andis worthy of thoughtful attention.

45 Carlton J. H. Hayes, Wartime Mission in Spain, 1942-1945 (New York,1946), pp. 4-5.

american catholic dissenters and the spanish civil war

Documents