Here's my problem


Josemaria Escriva was, if not an actual fascist, then certainly a fascist sympathizer. He supported Franco both during the war and during Franco's dictatorship. I have a hard time with the idea that the movie will be praising someone who is a fellow traveler with dictators.


"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

I think the whole point of the film is that the Spanish Civil war was anything but clear cut in terms of good guys and bad guys. Franco may have represented fascism and authoritarian rule, but plenty of people such as the Carlists fought on the nationalist side that had no interest in fascist principles and only wanted to protect their religious freedom or way of life. LIkewise for the Republican side it wasn't all noble resistance on behalf of Democracy. There were plenty of hard line Stalinist thugs that openly murdered men and women in the streets, even members of their own ideology such as the brutal purges of the POUM at the hands of the more Stalin controlled Spanish Communist party.

So its not so easy to say "well he sided with Franco during and after the war so he must be a bad guy". Things were not that black and white back then.

As for whether or not he deserves saint hood, weeelllll thats debated even within the Church. Most likely he was granted canonization more for his work as the architect for the conservative revival among modern Catholics, as most of the Church leadership are now conservatives its not such a stretch to see that they would want to heap glory onto one of their own. Such is religion and politics.

reply


Again he's a fellow traveler. The fact that some of these folks weren't dyed in the wool fascists isn't excuplatory. That's the case everywhere. There were people in various nations who were not fascists but liked what the fascists were selling and who were willing to support them to get what they wanted (in particular, Hitler's rise to power was only possible because various right wing parties in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party, either decided to back him or to step out of his way as he dismantled German democracy. The same was true in France where the Vichy government got support from various conservative elements in French society, including conservative Catholics, who felt that it would help them achieve their goals.) And Escriva and Opus Dei continued to be cozy with Franco throughout his regime so it's not like this is a case of some guy who was young and stupid and didn't know better (and saw the fascists as the anti-communist force).



"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

Again, Sayid, you are painting with too broad a brush. Should we condemn and outlaw the current PCE in Spain simply because its predecessors were involved in assassinations and show trial executions carried out from the orders of Soviet NKVD officers? Should we prosecute prominent union leaders who were cozy with murders and butchers who also committed war crimes during the civil war? The answer is no, because at some point you have to realize that horrible things were done on all sides and accept the peace that was built in the aftermath.

reply

And an awful lot of people on the Republican side were big fans of Joseph Stalin.
Fact is, by 1938 Democracy was dead in Spain no matter who won. The Republicans had pretty much been taken over by the Communist wing, which were huge fans of the Stalin way.

I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson

reply

Well easy now Dalbrech, you are making the same mistake as Sayid. Yes its true that groups such as the PCE and the Catalonian Workers Union and UGT were rife with Stalin's Apparatchik, but that doesn't mean that all Republicans were puppets of Moscow. The POUM were solidly Trotskyist (and paid dearly for it after the PCE seized the Cortes Generales midway through the war) and one could hardly call the International Brigades a Stalin ally. And let us not forget the sad fate of the Anarchist Syndicates of the CNT. All they wanted was to be free to run their communes, all they got was to be shot by both sides.

reply

Some of them yeah, but in this case Stalin was on the side of the angels.

In the end we've got a guy who may be lionized by this film who is a fascist sympathizer and remained so for much of his life. No Franco isn't Hitler, but he's certainly a dictator, and Escriva continued to support him.

"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

Side of the Angels? I'll defend the Republican army from these claims it was some evil tool of Communism, but I sure as heck won't call them the side of the angels. I may be beginning to understand a little of whats going on now, Sayid. You have a strong bias toward the Republican cause, don't you? Its cool, but it may be overly clouding your view on all of this.

reply

Some of them yeah, but in this case Stalin was on the side of the angels.

You are completely missing the excellent points made by others in this thread. It's not that "Stalin was on the side of the angels," but rather that some of your "angels" were on Stalin's side. Stalinism was a brutal, murderous philosophy, every bit as bad as fascism. That's the point the movie tries to make: That BOTH sides had some valid reasons for the positions they took and yet BOTH sides contained elements that were vicious, repressive and violent.

Basically, your point of view seems to be "Franco was a fascist. Fascism was bad. Therefore, anything that was not 100% anti-fascist must also be 100% bad." This is overly simplistic thinking, although it is certainly very politically correct. Among people who choose not to bother thinking about the world but prefer to accept whatever beliefs are held by "the right kind of people" without question ... you will fit right in.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly. Worse still, the movie whitewashes his fascist sympathies interrumpting the story when he crosses the border. He went back to Spain, to the fascist capital, Burgos, and he was a power in the shadow who placed several ministers in Franco's regime.

Opus Dei itself is a right-wing sect with the ambition to conquer power, both in the Church and in society. There are horror stories about the way they control their frock. Dianetics is a child play compared to them.

reply

*Sigh* well Larean, I'm sorry to see that you have somehow bought into this notion that Opus Dei is some grand secret society, honestly it just elevates a group rather than tear it down.

As for the "fascist sympathies", I am somewhat amused, I suppose these are the same "fascist sympathies" shared by Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and plenty of other world leaders who through the 1950s, 60s and 70s, all supported and befriended the Franco regime.

reply

I think I agree with most of what you say apart from the bit about 'Stalin being on the side of the Angels'. Maybe you've seen the Ken Loach film Land and Freedom or read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia both of which expose the depth of Stalin's duplicity.

Between 1936 and 1939 Stalin performed a foreign policy U turn. As the civil war progressed he became more interested in appeasing French and British politicians who were at best neutral towards Spain's Republican government. When that failed he openly courted Hitler and we now know that by 1939 he had decided to abandon the Republicans.

However being Stalin, he only told Hitler's diplomats and instructed the Spanish Communists to attack the independent revolutionaries; leading to the civil war within the civil war. So whoever you think the 'Angels' were, Stalin was only on Stalin's side. He was prepared to abandon even his own loyal Communist Party volunteers who continued fighting the fascists without supplies and without even knowing the game plan and hence their own inevitable fate!

reply

I think that you are talking without actually knowing the facts.
Josemaria Escriva was not involved in politics at all. Even though at that moment the republican army were prosecuting and killing publicly nuns, priests and other religious, which might have a lot of them take part in Franco's side, he never took part in any band.

reply

It was not the Republican army doing those atrocities Sanchorage, it was political parties and socialist militias within the Republican army that were burning churches, hanging priests, and raping nuns. General Rojo even gave orders to protect churches on the grounds that these atrocities committed by Soviet backed militias were nothing but a propaganda coup for Franco. It's just a sad fact of war that in the end Rojo's orders were countermined by local union leaders.

reply

Depends on what you mean by "involved with politics". he didn't hold office but he certainly supported Franco's side, a position he never changed. As I said in my reply to Snakeprophet there were a lot of people in the 30s who backed the fascists for their own reasons but most of these folks realized their mistake. Escriva never seemed to change his mind about Franco


"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."

reply

So the major issue is that Escriva was consistent for most of his life? Was Eisenhower somehow better after claiming to be a slayer of Fascism and destroyer of dictators, only to then turn around and place lips firmly to Franco's ass after the war waas over?

Escriva supported Franco after WWII, but then so did a vast majority of the Western world.

reply

[deleted]

The problem here is that none of us 'knows' the facts. We are all observing a film version of the facts and asking; to what extent is any of this true?

reply

Franco was an authoritarian, not a totalitarian. Under the Popular Front government, Spain was a republic but was falling under the influence of Stalinists and might have ended up a totalitarian state if Franco had not led his revolt. History doesn't offer easy choices. Franco was the lesser of two evils. As for Opus Dei, the organization, mostly now of a technocratic orientation, helped make Spain's transition to democracy after his death as smooth as it was.

reply

How did Opus Dei help? They are nor particularly known for their generosity!

reply

Latin buddy asked me a question, but for some reason my computer or IMDB didn't allow me to reply directly, so I'm replying here and hoping that he sees it.

Opus Dei is an order that has gained significant influence with the wealthy and politically powerful--an influence for good.

Opus Dei is responsible for much charitable giving--often by influencing rich people to give rather than by the order itself giving.

Opus Dei used its influence after Franco's death in Spain to persuade the powerful not to oppose a transition to democracy.

Opus Dei promotes technocracy as a way to wealth for all.

reply

Opus Dei is an order that has gained significant influence with the wealthy and politically powerful--an influence for good.

Opus Dei is responsible for much charitable giving--often by influencing rich people to give rather than by the order itself giving.

Opus Dei used its influence after Franco's death in Spain to persuade the powerful not to oppose a transition to democracy.

Opus Dei promotes technocracy as a way to wealth for all.


Opus Dei is a secretive organisation that no one voted for, with powerful influence over the affairs of society. Anyone who loves democracy and fredom should be ware of it.

Charity doesn't solve anything. Charity is an insult to the dignity of Man. Charity reduces people to beggars living on alms kindly donated by rich people who've become rich by exploiting the poor.

Do you know how you distribute wealth to all? It's not giving miserable alms. It's by paying workers good salaries and not the minimum wage; by not destroying hundreds of jobs in moving companies to third world countries; by respecting the rights of the workers instead of hiring children in sweat shops. By paying their taxes to the state to fund the educational and health systems, instead of paying laywers versed in the art of using labyrinthine legislation to avoid paying taxes.

To the rich, I'm sure giving alms feels great, a cheap way of buying piece of mind without really changing anything.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

Opus Dei is a secretive organisation that no one voted for, with powerful influence over the affairs of society. Anyone who loves democracy and fredom should be ware of it.


Good grief people, lets not start with the conspiracy theories here. Opus Dei is about as threatening as the Elks Lodge, but without the cool hats.

reply

Hey Eumenides? Too much Dan Brown reading uh?
One thing is clear: you know nothing about the Opus Dei
Charity, for Christianity and within the Catholic Church is exactly what you said:

"paying workers good salaries and not the minimum wage; by not destroying hundreds of jobs in moving companies to third world countries; by respecting the rights of the workers instead of hiring children in sweat shops. By paying their taxes to the state to fund the educational and health systems, instead of paying laywers versed in the art of using labyrinthine legislation to avoid paying taxes."

Have you read any documents from the Vatican and the Popes about Labor, workers, salaries, etc... I guess you haven't.

Stop reading Dan "the clown" Brown and get some real books about the subject.


Q: What happens if you get a gigabyte? A: It Megahertz!

reply

No, I haven't read the Vatican's documents; I did hear on TV, however, the Bishop of Lisbon, here in Portugal, say that it was alright for the state to retain half of the Christmas bonus of every Portuguese this year, as if we weren't burdened with enough taxes and austerity measures already and seeing our buying power decrease.

So you keep your documents, and I'll make up my mind not based on what Dan Brown write but what actual Catholics in high places say.

The Holy Church thrives on misery and poverty. Middle class people who have time and the means to pursue interests won't care about the rubbish message of a paradise in the other life; we're too busy enjoying the only life here, on this planet. For the Church's message to ressonate at all, people must be deprived of everything, all their hopes must be crushed, all their dreams denied, until they have nothing to turn to but a fantasy that preaches social peace and order.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

Where's the "I like" button? :D

reply

What I got from the discussions above was that the main political groups fighting during the time in the movie were made up of yet sub-groups, the political party acting as an umbrella for them, that at times work in coordination with each other, but also at other times operate on its own, unheedful of the orders from the top brass of the political party they belong to, so that's why in the case of Rojo, his orders were ignored. Is that it ? If that's the case, no wonder the Civil War is so chaotic. And it is just how all of it is in this movie.

Just like how one of the characters said it, as if God have forgotten them.
Then Escriva mouthing about "there's so much beauty and joy in this world", it just grates on me, personally speaking.




Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into the Light.

reply

Pretty much an excellent summary of the acutal situation, Torian06. I haven't seen the movie so I can't really comment on how authentic to the historical record it tries to remain. But it seems from the film you captured the essence of what made the Spanish Civil War so terrible and why a civil war of ideology in this modern era would be a truly brutal and nightmarish scenario, far from this noble American Civil War atmosphere most people try to imagine. The fiction of Civil War is two armies meeting in glorious battle with officers on horseback and saber. The truth of modern Civil War is your neighbor coming in the middle night to murder your family and then flee into the dark before you return. The truth is show trials, mass executions, and reeducation camps. The truth is atrocity added on top of atrocity just to "even the score".

reply

I agree, although I like the film and find it to be a powerful and honest appraisal of the times at a general level, I nevertheless think that there has definitely been an attempt here to whitewash Escriva by those sympathetic to Opus Dei.

However I notice that many posts are confusing the fact with the excuse. Was he a fascist sympathizer - almost certainly! Was he justified - probably not but that is just a political judgment by me.

Personally I don't think it is justifiable to pre-empt a democratically elected government before its term is up. If such a government then refuses to submit itself for re-election, that is the time to take to the streets in an attempt to bring it down; with the proviso that that is the prerogative of the people at large and not a self-appointed self-interested elite! It's the difference between the mass dissatisfaction with unelected Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the US backed coup by Pinochet against Allende in 1973.

reply

All people of the cloth are naturally going to lean towards being principle right wingers, but I wouldn't call him a fascist. Fascism is extreme right.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]