Contemporary History February 15, 2013 Latin America and the Catholic Church Case Study Pope John Paul II’s visit to Nicaragua in the Spring of 1983 was a response to concern that there was an alliance between Marxist revolutionaries and priests that was emerging in Latin America. Despite the fact that the priests were claiming to be doing nothing but advocating the interests of the poor, the possibility of this alliance worried Pope John Paul II because the church (in Europe) had always taken an anti-communist stance (Hoyt, 1996). The reform-minded Catholics in Nicaragua became very hopeful that during his visit, the Pope would lend his support to the revolutionary cause. Although the did not expect him or the church to get behind the Marxist principles, as they were aware the Catholic Church highly disagreed with them, they did however expect the Pope to make some sort of statement of encouragement, support, and compassion to the thousands who had suffered and died, to those who were still losing loved ones to the counterrevolution, and for the families of those teen-agers, members of the Sandinista Youth Organization, who were ambushed and killed, and buried just one day prior to the Pope’s Mass (Hoyt, 1996). Before the Mass had hit its midway point however, it became very obvious to the people of Nicaragua, who had come to see the Pope for these words of support and prayer(s) of compassion that he was not going to be offering any such things to them.
The Moors influence was getting weakened and Boabdil actions made everything worse He was the son of the sultan Abu l-Hasan Ali, and as it sometimes happens with princes, Boabdil was restless to gain power. So, after a series of incidents between Christians and Muslims that shook Granada's stability, Boabdil named himself ruler of Granada. Of course, his words didn't take too long to catch fire. A civil war ensued in the emirate, weakening it and easing the way for the Christian troops. The Granada seemed to be an easy target for Ferdinand and Isabella to conquer so in return they’ll gain power and glory.
The Sandinistas were so sure that he would facilitate peace and denounce America’s support of the Contras, they encouraged and provided transportation for about 800,000 persons to see the Pope (Hoyt, 1983). However, their dreams would not be realized. The Pope told the people not to promote violence and even though he acknowledged Archbishop Romero as a martyr, he basically said do not follow in his footsteps and do not allow his memory to be a politically oriented one. He also chastised some other priests for holding political positions and telling them that is not their path. He further stressed unity of the Church as the way to promote peace and asked the people to abandon their “…unacceptable ideological commitments…”for the faith (Hoyt, 1983).
The main motivation for the reformation in England was Henry V111 religious convictions how far do you agree with this statement? The reformation in England was the change from Catholicism to Protestantism. Henry V111 played a huge role in the reformation for example he stopped the amount of taxes that were being payed to Rome and he later ordered the dissolution of the monasteries however there are many other reasons to why the reformation in England took place for example for many years Protestants had argued over the beliefs and laws of the catholic religion as they believed some of their beliefs were corrupt. For example the Catholics had a strong belief in purgatory this is a seen as being like a waiting room were your soul is weighed on all of the sins you have committed compared to all of the positives that you have done throughout your life. The church said that the only way you could get time out of purgatory or save a family member from purgatory was to buy indulgences this means that the monks will pray for you and your family.
How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that the early 16th century church exploited the faith of its followers to increase its own wealth? We know that in the early 16th century, around the time of the reformation of the church in England, much had been said about the state in which the church was in. Many opponents, such as Simon Fish, the writer of source 1, would state that the church was riddled with corruption and in a state of collapse. However, the Catholic Church still played a vital role in the life of most everyday people. Source 1, would strongly support the statement, as it aggressively attacks the church and its actions.
They had condemned de Valera and his followers during the civil war however Fianna Fail were strongly influenced by the church and bishops. De valera seeked acceptance as leader who had the approval of the church. This meant that the Eucharistic congress of 1932 would be significant as it was perfect for
Bismarck did not help to make the Catholics feel welcome in the Confederation. Pope Pius IX that the Church was slowly losing its traditional power, so he announced that any statement he made was to be accepted everywhere by Catholics, therefore German bishops would have to obey. Bismarck similarly wanted his new government to be obeyed. The Centre party (Catholic party) began to win more seats in the Reichstag, causing concern for Bismarck as there loyalty may be to the Pope. Bismarck began to fight back, he banned the most active order of Catholic priests and introduced a law that the government had a right to inspect all schools, including Catholic ones.
Our Fathers also has various other meanings to it. Several people in the audience were fathers, have fathers, and may have lost a father in the great battle of Gettysburg. That was a way to get connected with the people on a more delicate level. The use of “our ‘also gives a sense of relation with Lincoln and the audience because being president can seem intimidating and he’s seen as superior to them. In the “the lord’s prayer” spoken in catholic based churches, our father is said in the beginning.
It has been argued that Charles I was the main reason that war broke out. I will be investigating whether this is a far accusation by looking at the long-term and the short-term causes for the English Civil War and assessing how far Charles was really to blame. Firstly, it has been argued that Charles was to blame for the long-term reasons such as wanting to make changes to religion, the power of the king and money. For example, Charles was partly to blame for money because he was trying to buy off the Scottish with £850 a day (which he could not afford) as a result from trying to make the Scottish Puritans. They rebelled and tried to attack.
This is when the Catholic church in South America preached about how the people should stand up to the wealthy governments and bourgeoisie businessmen, owning almost all of the land and wealth between only a handful of people. This Neo Marxist view differs heavily from Marx’s original writings, as he thought that religion would only ever bring more corruption and greed to the people. On this divergence, Liberation Theory did not create much success and the priests who preached about liberation from the bourgeoisie were condemned by the Official hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Most practicing Catholics then also came out and condemned such behaviour, stigmatising the notion of true class equality. Thus proving Marx’s thoughts to an extent.