Religion and Theology

The Church must change with changing times and be prepared to take difficult positions whether or not its followers or political environments approve of her views. It must remain a true independent voice that ca be counted on at all times. Even so, it is also through that unless the church remains pragmatic in the face of the varied challenges, it risks losing it relevance all together as such a proper balance needs to be struck between the religious principles and the cold blooded realities of the changing World.

Stalin considered religion as archaic and rightly dyeing backward superstitions to be replaced by rationalism. This belief was backed by the cold, ruthless muscle of the Soviet Union that clumped down on religion, closing down churches, killing or incarcerating priests etc. In her desperation to stem the spread of Communism, The Catholic Church and Pope Pius IV supported the fascist and ideologically Nazi-like Ustasha movement in the Balkans which was to become the murderous regime in Croatia. A Country that owed her existence to Hitlers invasion of Yugoslavia and led by Vatican supported Ante Pavelic who had been involved in the double assassinations of political leaders abroad and was in fact convicted and wanted for murder in France (Phayer 2001)

In 1941, the Ustasha issued decrees abolishing Jewish Citizenship in Croatia as well forcing Jews to wear the star David as well as the subsequent detention of thousands of them which marked the onset of the genocide that in turn heralded the holocaust across Europe. To all these Church turned a blind eye and even when it finally broke ranks with the Ustashi, some among the churchs hierarchy continued their support for the government as indeed did many Catholics in Croatia. Genocides occurred not just in Croatia, perpetrated by Catholics, but in Poland as well where Catholics bore the brunt as well. And even as the Holocaust came it caused little or no condemnation at all from the holy Sea, lest the Vatican incur the wrath of Hitler or the allied forces. (Appleby 2000).

Even though the church despised Nazism as well as the heinous activities by those it initially supported, church failed to publicly denounce in good time those crimes. It never should be misconstrued that the church was responsible for actions of the anti communist movements nor that it ever was the role of the church to stop the war or the killings, but owing to her great power and influence across the world, which it should have employed better, its silence created a dubious impression not just among her murderous followers in Croatia, but also among anti-Semitic Nazi government.

Criticisms of the popes conduct over look the difficult conditions that existed then, namely that there was a world war and most of the globe including the Vatican as well as her followers were under the grip of either the Axis or the allied forces and bound by the rules of war. In addition, the perceived influence that the church was thought to wield over her subjects was really non existent in the face repression and occupation by the Nazi. It is easy not to see the importance of the neutrality of the Vatican, bearing in mind the enormous pressure from both side of the war for the Vatican to come down on their side as well as the effect that any such denunciations would have had on safety of detainees in the hands of the Nazi.

Theologically, the church recognizes the inevitability of war, the threat of war plagues humanity in as far as man remains sinful and until the second coming of Christ and calls upon Christs supporters to not only work for the establishment of a just order but be prepared to wage warLet he who doesnt have a sword sell his mantle and buy one

The churchs theology is pacifist, insisting on utmost respect of human life, and pursuance of legitimate defense. Keeping off war at all costs except if and only if the war is just i.e. meets the strict criteria namely war can be waged against annihilationist aggressor, who has inflicted such grave, certain as well as lasting damage on a community or country, where all other means of putting a halt to the war prove ineffective, where the is a real possibility of winning the war and the use of arms must not lead to the perpetration of greater evils than those the war aims to mitigate against, a detail that would have rendered the support of the church to the allied forces and the use nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki problematic. In addition, church doctrine lays the burden of deciding the above on the shoulders of those entrusted with the responsibility for common good which is the political government.

The strict guidelines under which the church could support a war or indeed be involved in one, if just made it impossible to take a clear stand on the on going conflict. With such an unworldly view of the war, it appears the church had never been prepared (nothing could ever prepare it nor was anyone else prepared), to cope with monstrosity of the second world war especially when the church had still been struggling to cope with her violent past dating back to days of the crusade, reformation etc.
Thus emerging from a conflict with a bruised image about which it had an ambiguous stand, the church has struggled to reassert her high moral ground, the Churchs moral standing in society suffered immensely.

For her position against communism before the war, the church was to come out of the war and face the grim reality of persecution of her followers in communist especially in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and across China, which resulted in a complete loss of presence of the church in Yugoslavia. This set up the Church for a different role that it was to play during the ensuing cold war.

The Second World War also resulted into the creation of the modern Nation of Israel and its sequel, the Arab Israeli wars that have lasted decades with no end in sight. The need to for Jewish people to have their own State is not difficult to see, which has to be weighed against the needs of the Arab populations especially in Palestine. The Church has had to toe a thin line between sticking up for the interest of the Palestinians while fiercely guarding the right of Israel to exist.

Flowing in part from the Middle Eastern conflict is the need to forge closer relations among the world religions, particularly Christianity and Islam. Even in the face of several religious conflicts in varied countries across the World not Least Northern Ireland, Bosnia etc, not to mention the emergence of religious fundamentalism that has in turn spawned terrorism across the world.

There is also the problem of evolving roles, and expectations of the church, changing definitions of morality, theological interpretations etc. (Kent 2002). Emerging issues call for the church change to suit the times, these have included World War 2, the cold war, genocides in Rwanda etc and the continued emergence of such grave matters would forever remain a challenge to the church. Besides, the church has had to learn to manage societys expectations on what the church can and cannot do.