User:Dr Gangrene/church tr

"In various instances throughout its nearly 200-year history as an independent entity (1840 Apostolic Vicariate, 1870 Diocese), was the Catholic Church in Luxembourg forward-looking or backward-oriented? When was it a driving force, and when was it a hindrance? When was it dynamic or stagnant, propelling or retarding, proactive or reactive, productive or counterproductive, constructive or destructive? Examples can be cited for both movements, spanning different periods.

A preliminary note: The perspective from which one assesses these events will be crucial in many cases. In line with this relativity (theory), the statements made will appear in a positive or negative light. These considerations often tend to be dominated by the perspective of the victor, highlighting what ultimately prevailed – not necessarily a moral or religious standpoint but one that could be. Such reflections reveal the non-binding or even arbitrary nature of these thought exercises, as they reflect, comment on, and judge historical events in the evolutionary context of 'longue durée.'

Revolution and Advocacy for Democracy
In the 'Year of Revolutions' in 1848, when a liberal revolution swept across Europe against established political regimes, Luxembourg was part of the movement. The Church, alongside day laborers and craftsmen with whom it had formed alliances, played a significant role in the opposition against doctrinaire Liberals in power. The central figure was the highest ecclesiastical authority in the country, the Apostolic Vicar Johannes Theodor Laurent (1842-48). He presented revolutionary demands to King Grand Duke Wilhelm II, who still wielded almost absolute rule: freedom of the press, freedom of education, the freedom of private charity, and, most importantly, direct and general elections. Until then, in Luxembourg, active and passive voting rights were reserved for the wealthy through the electoral census system, and it happened only indirectly, through elected representatives. Laurent was supported by Eduard Mich(a)elis, a professor at the priestly seminary established in 1845, who also advocated for these demands, albeit with a call for a progressive introduction. The newly founded Luxembourg Wort, on March 23 of the same year, three days after the introduction of press freedom, echoed the same sentiments. Additionally, a movement initiated by the seminary and a protest committee of Catholic laity called for the abolition of the electoral census. Direct elections were indeed implemented with the liberal constitution of June 23, 1848, while universal suffrage only followed in 1919. The prophetic and critical role of the Church in the revolutionary year 1848 is underrepresented in the current exhibition on voting rights at the National Museum, for reasons unknown. 1848 was a shining moment for Luxembourg Catholicism, especially considering that it ultimately cost the Apostolic Vicar his office, and he was reassigned by the Pope on May 1 due to a government intrigue – banished for his promising commitment to democracy.

Both Laurent and his successor, Nikolaus Adames (1848-1883), opposed the 1848 constitution – acting as a brake here! The reason was anachronistic state control over the Church, constitutionally enshrined and remaining, unlike the more liberal Belgian constitution, whose version Luxembourg otherwise replicated. From the 1850s onwards, the Church returned to a more conservative course in line with the Rome-oriented 'Ultramontanism.' In 1856, the Catholic deputies, led by Charles-Gérard Eyschen, voted for the reactionary revision of the constitution. Another setback.

In the second half of the 19th century, there were no Catholic voices in favor of universal suffrage. However, after 1900, especially within the framework of the Catholic 'Volksverein,' the discussion, conviction, and advocacy for universal suffrage gained momentum. This led to Catholic representatives of the Right Party voting in favor of the constitutional reform in 1919, including extending voting rights to women. In the aforementioned exhibition, the spiritual deputy Pierre Schiltz rightfully receives recognition for justifying women's suffrage with economic emancipation and gender equality – a surprisingly progressive stance from a clergyman a century ago.

The engagement of the Ultramontane clergy for greater freedom of the Church in society (e.g., freedom of education, i.e., the possibility of private schools) and thus more freedom of opinion and religion cannot be discussed here. However, their democratic engagement, which developed asynchronously and in opposition to the backward-looking papacy, is noteworthy. While the latter only embraced the democratic system after rigorous condemnations under Gregory XVI (1832 and 1834) and Pius IX (1864) – starting with Leo XIII (1881), the Catholic clocks in Luxembourg had long ticked differently.

As early as 1848, church leaders Nikolaus Adames and Johannes Joseph Koppes issued official voting recommendations to Catholics, acknowledging the electoral system, deficient as it was. Only through active participation could Catholics make themselves heard in the liberal-dominated state and participate in shaping society, even if, due to the electoral census, most of them were denied voting rights. Methods for political action, sometimes ignoring Roman ideas or guidelines, included voter turnout, petitions, demonstrations, Catholic representatives, threatened legislative boycotts, etc. Neither the inadequate democratic system in the country nor the reactionary center beyond the Alps in the Vatican could brake the momentum of political Catholicism. The question of whether this, in conjunction with other ideological parties and groups, after 1919 in Luxembourg, yielded progressive social legislation, cannot be addressed within the scope of this contribution.

The Pioneering Role of Congregations
From the mid-19th century onwards, expanding religious orders and congregations took on a pioneering role, especially in the social and educational fields, both in Luxembourg and neighboring countries. In the liberal-governed state, where social concerns were not a priority, religious women, in particular, stepped in, taking care of the poor, sick, and needy, organizing healthcare, and assuming significant responsibility in the education system, including public schools. This 'spring of religious orders' lasted well into the 20th century. The current social system in Luxembourg, as it exists today, is the result of these historical constellations, even though the orders themselves have long been in decline. Representing all other congregations – both national foundations and those from abroad – the most significant ones should be mentioned here: for the education sector, the Sainte-Sophie Sisters (Augustinian Canonesses), the Sisters of Christian Doctrine, the Priests of the Sacred Heart, the School Brothers of St. John Baptist de La Salle; for the social and charitable sector, the Sisters of St. Elizabeth, Franciscan Sisters, Zitha Sisters, Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus, and the Brothers of Charity.

Female branches of orders overwhelmingly dominated, giving the Church a femininely shaped face ('catholicisme au féminin'). They allowed women to occupy an important position in society, beyond family and agricultural operations. The flexibility and dedication of the nuns kept pace with changing challenges. Moreover, their role as cheap (earning little and creating infrastructure voluntarily) and reliable labor made them particularly attractive to municipal authorities and the state for many decades, despite the orders themselves being in decline. Now, let's explore some examples where church behavior had negative repercussions and hindered positive developments.

Reactionary Stance in the School Struggle of 1912
When a new school law was passed in 1912 against the will of the Church, Bishop Koppes asked the clergy to boycott the school system. They should not accept any functions in the secular schools nor provide religious instruction in them. He argued that the Catholic people could not acknowledge any law that separated religion from education. This led to the so-called school struggle of 1912. Not only did the clergy resist the law, but also the Catholic teachers and parents followed the bishops' call. As a result, the secular schools were left without sufficient personnel, and the state was forced to close down many schools. However, public opinion turned against the Church. The population became more secularized and distanced itself from the reactionary attitude of the Church. This event marked the beginning of a continuous decline in church influence in Luxembourg.

Resistance to Modernization in the Interwar Period
The interwar period in Luxembourg saw a significant struggle between conservative forces, often aligned with the Catholic Church, and progressive movements advocating for social and political change. The Catholic Church, as an institution, was often resistant to modernization efforts and social reforms proposed by the more left-leaning or socialist groups. The Church's conservative stance sometimes hindered progress in areas such as labor rights, social welfare, and education.

One notable example is the resistance to the secularization of education and the establishment of a public school system. The Church, holding a powerful position in education, opposed efforts to reduce its influence and control over schools. The conflict over the "école unique" (single school system) in the 1920s and 1930s reflected this tension between the Church and the secular state. The Church's opposition to certain modernization efforts slowed down the pace of social and educational reforms during this period.

Collaboration with Authoritarian Regimes
During the 1930s and 1940s, the Catholic Church in Luxembourg, like in many other European countries, faced the challenge of dealing with authoritarian regimes. The rise of fascist and Nazi regimes posed a dilemma for the Church, leading to varying degrees of collaboration, resistance, or accommodation. In Luxembourg, the Church, to some extent, collaborated with the authoritarian regime of Pierre Dupong during the 1930s. Dupong's government, while not explicitly fascist, had authoritarian tendencies, and some members of the Church hierarchy were supportive of its conservative policies.

The Church's collaboration with the regime extended to its acceptance of certain limitations on freedom of the press and expression. This collaboration became more evident during the early years of the German occupation in World War II when the Church, under Bishop Joseph Laurent Philippe, initially cooperated with the occupiers. This cooperation included restrictions on the publication of certain newspapers and the dismissal of teachers who did not comply with the occupiers' directives. While some individual priests and members of the laity resisted the occupation, the overall stance of the Church hierarchy during this period was one of cooperation with the authoritarian regime.

Conclusion
The history of the Catholic Church in Luxembourg is marked by a complex interplay of progressive and conservative elements, forward-looking initiatives, and reactionary stances. The Church has played a significant role in shaping social, political, and educational landscapes in the country, sometimes as a driving force for positive change and at other times as a hindrance to progress.

The Church's involvement in the 1848 revolution, advocating for democratic reforms, and its pioneering role in education and social welfare through religious orders demonstrate instances of positive influence. However, its resistance to certain modernization efforts, collaboration with authoritarian regimes, and reactionary stances, such as the school struggle of 1912, reveal instances where the Church acted as a conservative force.

The nuanced nature of the Church's historical role in Luxembourg underscores the importance of considering various perspectives and contexts when evaluating its impact. It is essential to recognize both the progressive and regressive aspects of the Church's engagement with societal changes over the years, acknowledging its contributions while also critically examining its limitations and setbacks."

(Note: This response provides an analysis based on the historical information provided and aims to present a comprehensive view of the Catholic Church's role in Luxembourg, considering both positive and negative aspects.)