Church and State in Argentina

• Published date: 01 December 1949
• DOI: 10.1177/106591294900200403
• Date: 01 December 1949
• Author: L. Edward Shuck
• Subject Matter: Articles

CHURCH AND STATE IN ARGENTINA
L. EDWARD SHUCK, JR.
Lewis and Clark College
HE
POPULAR imagination, with its vague belief that the &dquo;govern-
ment&dquo; or the &dquo;state&dquo; somehow or other is a transcendent reality
different from and superimposed upon a helpless and passive &dquo;peo-
ple,&dquo; conceives that dictators rule by arbitrary whim, concerned only
casually with the interests and opinions of their people. In reality, of,
course, the dictator’s power is dependent upon the organized economic
and political forces which are predominant in society. As is the case with
all governments, the dictator’s power comes from enthusiastic support
from some groups combined with varying degrees of acquiescence and
passivity evidenced by other groups.
Professor Charles E. Merriam has written of &dquo;emerging trends of
power.&dquo; In developing an analysis of the sources of political power, there
are several factors which he believes to be of great importance. Among
them, he writes, is &dquo;the transition to systems of control resting more di-
rectly upon recognized mass support, whether in democracy, fascism
(or) sovietism.&dquo;
1
The dictator, no less than the parliamentary politician,
recognizes the necessity of winning popular support; and ordinarily this
involves considerably more than mere conciliation of the elite. A broad
popular base of power must somehow be maintained-maintained ten-
uously by threat and intimidation, or somewhat more subtly by control
of thought and emotion through a manipulation of prejudices-religious,
patriotic, cultural, or racial. Even a faithful palace guard cannot guar-
antee the power and safety of an unpopular dictator. When public
issues are presented to the people in a democracy and are settled by
action of a plurality of the politically vociferous, the government can count
upon the opinion or consent of the governed, although it is a fatal mis-
take to overlook the armed elite-as the history of the Spanish Republic
demonstrates. The dictator cannot count upon the active support evi-
denced by democratically devised consent, and indeed his mere existence
may be a provocation. He is therefore obliged to resort continuously to de-
vices which will gain the support, or at least the continued acquiescence
or neutrality, of the substantial power-wielding groups within the society.
The dictator who comes to power as a result of a profound social
movement can rely upon a new social alignment for his support. But
the dictator who succeeds by a coup d’ etat must seek support within the
1
Charles E. Merriam, Political Power (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934), p. 320.
527

---

528
existing social order. Hence there is a sort of compulsion toward conser-
vatism in such a dictatorship. Perhaps this is why Louis Napoleon never
fulfilled the revolutionary expectations of his supporters.
One whom history may yet recognize as the twentieth century Louis
Napoleon, Juan Domingo Per6n, came into authority by coup d’etat.
However, he did proceed therefrom to develop a partially new social
alignment. He has used almost every available mechanism to convince
his people and the world that his regime is &dquo;constitutional.&dquo; He has
redistributed the political and organizational power into the hands of
’supporters on a very broad scale-to his own great advantage, at least
at this writing. Private associations in Argentina have virtually all been
&dquo;renovated&dquo; to conform to Per6n’s ideological aims.
Studies of the Per6n regime have given attention chiefly to the super-
ficial and more obvious tactics by which Per6n has drawn to his support
the previously mute masses of Argentina. He has had great success.
Unwarrantably slighted, however, has been his fundamental and very
sound fence-building through his conciliation of the Roman Catholic
Church. The Church in Argentina, formerly vastly overrated so far as
its membership was concerned,2 has been greatly aided by the Peronists,
and in return has offered assistance of quite tangible nature to the gov-
ernment.
The problem of the locating of authority, the so-called &dquo;Church
and State&dquo; relationship, is of course not new. Since the days of Ambrose
and Augustine, the central fact in this relationship has been the insis-
tence of the Roman hierarchy upon the unquestionable divinity and
supremacy of its own authority in the realm of the &dquo;spiritual&dquo;-a word
which obviously can encompass a wide variety of specific subjects. In
view of the influence which the Catholic hierarchy has maintained in
Southern Europe and in Latin America, it is understandable that Juan
Per6n has sought to make the Church an ally rather than a critic.
Traditionally the Church of Rome has insisted upon recognition
by the state. Bellarmine wrote:
Final authority must be with the Church, otherwise Princes unfavorable towards
the Church could freely foster heresy and menace the very foundation of religion in a
state. Therefore the Church must have and in reality has the power over the State.3
2 Attention might be directed to a recent report by a North American Catholic layman, George P.
Doherty. Mr. Doherty reports on a pre-World War II Catholic Church-sponsored survey in Ar-
gentina in his "The Cross and the Sword: A Catholic View of Argentine Nationalism," Har-
per’s Magazine, Vol. CXC (1945), pp. 106-115. Mr. Doherty points out that but twenty per cent of
the Argentines can be listed as "practicing Catholics" (i.e., persons who maintain a reasonably
regular attendance at mass and offer some financial support-other than taxation-to the Catholic
Church).
3 Cardinal Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice. Cf. Alexander Olalia, A Comparative Study of the
Christian Constitution of States and the Constitution of the Philippine Commonwealth. A dis-
sertation for the degree of Doctor of Canon Law (Washington: Catholic University of America,
Canon Law Studies, No. 206, 1944), p. 50.

---

529
Pope Leo XIII stressed the divine role of the Catholic Church in
mundane affairs:
She [the Catholic Church] is not an association of Christians brought together by
chance, but is a divinely established and admirably constituted society, having for its
direct and proximate purpose to lead the world to peace and holiness. And since the
Church alone has, through the Grace of God, received the means necessary to realize
such end, she has her fixed laws, special spheres of action, and a certain method, fixed
and conformable to her nature, of governing Christian people.’
Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives
the prime origin of all power directly from God himself, with grave authority it charges
rulers to be mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their
people kindly and with paternal charity; it admonishes subjects to be obedient to law-
ful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to their rulers, not merely by
obedience, but by reverence and affection, forbidding all seditious and venturesome en,
terprise calculated to disturb public order and tranquility, and cause greater restrictions
to be put upon the liberty of the people
5
Historically this idea has led the Church to insist upon obedience to the
secular authorities as long as the secular authorities do not challenge the
material or social prerogatives of the Catholic Church. It is in accordance
with doctrine, then, that the Church should keep up legal and political
relations with the state. Although in Catholic theology there is only one
true Church, political forms are a matter of official indifference so long
as due respect is shown to the properties and privileges of the Church.
Accordingly, to protect or enhance its organizational strength, the Church
has in the past negotiated concordats with kings and emperors as well
as with republics; and in the twentieth century has come to agreement
with the several nationalist leaders and groups loosely referred to as
&dquo;fascist&dquo;-Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Salazar, the Croatian Ustashis of
World War II, and various Latin American strong men.6
4 Leo XIII, Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae, in John J. Wynne, trans., The Great Encyclical Letters of
Pope Leo XIII (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), p. 195.
5 Leo XIII, Encyclical, Libertas Praestantissimum, in ibid., p. 151.
6
Adolph Keller, Christian Europe Today (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942), pp. 36-37 (for a
summary report on concordats and exchanges of felicitations between the Roman hierarchy and
the Dollfuss and Hitler governments); Paul Hutchinson, The New Leviathan (New York: Willitt,
Clark and Company, 1946), pp. 125-154; George Seldes, The Vatican, Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1934), especially pp. 257-409; Salo W. Baron, Mod-
ern Nationalism and Religion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), pp. 110 ff.
Insofar as the Catholic Church support of the Nazi puppet regime set up by the Germans in
Yugoslavia is concerned, see The Case of Archbishop Stepinac (Washington: Embassy of the
Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, 1947). See also Religion in Yugoslavia (Washington:
Embassy of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, 1948). The latter report was compiled by
American Protestant clergymen and editors of religious journals who visited Yugoslavia in the
summer of 1947.
The men responsible for the report are Emory Stevens Bucks, George Walker
Buckner, Jr., Phillips Packer Elliott, William Howard Melish, Guy Emery Shipler, Samuel...