ABSTRACT Authoritarianism and the Catholic Church in Latin America Amy Edmonds, Ph.D. Dissertation Chairperson: Jerold L. Waltman, Ph.D. This research examines the relationship between the Catholic Church and the military regimes in Latin America in the latter half of the twentieth century. Although prevailing theories explain church behavior regarding authoritarianism in reference to Protestant competition, I argue that church opposition is best explained by institutional arrangements in two ways. First, whether the church opposes authoritarianism is contingent on the degree of institutional autonomy the church possesses. Secondly, the strength of the opposition depends upon the presence of structural carriers, which are institutions connecting the church to society. The cases of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay are examined through a historical institutionalist lens to test these hypotheses. Findings from these historical case studies indicate that both institutional autonomy and structural carriers are necessary for opposition. Ultimately, this study sheds light on the question of why religious institutions operate in varying ways in similar political contexts. It is also a contribution to the “path dependent model,” which posits that the history of institutional arrangements serves as a strong influence on contemporary institutional behavior. Authoritarianism and the Catholic Church in Latin America by Amy Edmonds, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Political Science ___________________________________ Mary P. Nichols, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee ___________________________________ Jerold L. Waltman, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Christopher Marsh, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Victor J. Hinojosa, Ph.D. ___________________________________ W. David Clinton, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Paul Froese, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School May 2010 ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright © 2010 by Amy Edmonds All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... v List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vi Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ vii Dedication ....................................................................................................................... viii 1. The Politics and Religion Nexus.................................................................................... 1 Hypothesis Theoretical Approach Research Strategy Structure of the Dissertation 2. Historical Church and State Relations in Latin America ............................................. 31 Composition of the Roman Catholic Church Colonial Christendom Independence and the Problem of Patronage Institutional Secularization The Rise of Progressivism Vatican II Progressivism and Conservatism The Church and Authoritarianism Globally 3. The Catholic Church in Chile: Integrated Autonomy .................................................. 60 Stage One: Structural Fusion Stage Two: Political Opposition Separation of Church and State Stage Three: Insulation Stage Four: Social Development Stage Five: Autonomous Integration The Pinochet Regime and Church Resistance Institutional Shelter Denouncing Pinochet Institutional Mediation iii 4. The Catholic Church in Argentina: The Established Church .................................... 104 Stage One: Structural Fusion Stage Two: Mild Anti-Clericalism and Opposition Ecclesiastical Expansion and Catholic Nationalism Peron Increasing Polarization The Military Regime and Church Accommodation 5. The Catholic Church in Uruguay: Willing but Weak ................................................ 143 Stage One: Structural Fusion Stage Two: Increasing Anti-Clericalism Separation of Church and State Stage Three: Insulation Political Disintegration in the 1960s and Church Response The Military Regime The Catholic Church and the Military Regime A Lack of Human Rights Organizations Explaining the Catholic Church’s Institutional Weakness 6. Analysis of the Three Case Studies ........................................................................... 175 Comparison of Church-State Development Institutional Arrangements and Authoritarianism Two Critical Junctures Conclusions Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 210 iv LIST OF TABLES 1. Twentieth Century Percentages of Population claiming to be Roman Catholic 192 2. Timing of the Formation Christian Democratic Parties 202 3. Electoral Results of Christian Democratic Parties 205 v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APDH Permanent Assembly for Human Rights CEA Argentinean Episcopal Conference CEB Comunidades Eclesiales de Base (Ecclesial Base Communities) CELAM Conferencia Episcopal Latinoamérica (Latin American Episcopal Conference) CONAR Comité Nacional de Ayuda a Refugiados (National Committee for Aid to Refugees) COPACHI The Ecumenical Committee of Cooperation for Peace in Chile DESAL Latin American Center for Research and Social Action DINA Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (Directorate of National Intelligence) FRAP Frente Acción Popular (Popular Action Front) HRO Human Rights Organization ICHR Inter-American Commission on Human Rights MAPU Movimiento de Acción Popular Unitaria (Movement of Unitary Popular Action) MEDH The Ecumenical Movement for Human Rights MSTM Movement of the Priests for the Third World PAN Partido Autonomista Nacional PDC Partido Democrático Cristiano (Christian Democratic Party) SERPAJ Servicio, Paz, y Justicia (Service, Peace, and Justice) UFDC Unión Federal Democrática Cristiana UP Unidad Popular (The Popular Unity) vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are a number of people who helped to make this project possible. First, I am indebted to the scholars who have gone before me; the works of J. Lloyd Mecham, Ivan Vallier, Brian H. Smith, and Daniel Philpott were particularly invaluable in forming my thinking as well as for the incredible amount of information they provided. Secondly, throughout my graduate career, my general interests regarding Latin America and the intersection of politics and religion have been fostered, gently pruned, and always encouraged by Dr. Victor Hinojosa, Dr. Chris Marsh, and Dr. Jerold Waltman. Dr. Waltman, as my chair, deserves extra gratitude for his availability, patience, cheerful guidance, and practical wisdom. Dr. David Clinton and Dr. Paul Froese both provided many valuable insights about ways that this project could be improved and expanded; I especially appreciate their willingness to offer their support and aid while they were on sabbatical. I would also like to express immense gratitude to Jenice Langston, whose knowledge and ability to graciously help people navigate through the bureaucratic hurdles of life is unsurpassed. Finally, I am thankful to Joseph, my partner in the pursuit of knowledge, life, and love, whose support and perseverance is a constant source of inspiration and courage. vii For my parents For all they have made me to be, And for Joseph For all we are and will be. viii CHAPTER ONE The Politics and Religion Nexus The point is that what is too easily dismissed as ‘context’ may in fact be absolutely crucial to understanding important social processes. Too often, contemporary social science simply drops out a huge range of crucial factors and processes, either because our methods and theories make it difficult to incorporate them, or because they simply lead us not to see them in the first place. –Paul Pierson 2004, 169 Within the field of political science, the influence of religion on the political sphere has been a frequently overlooked subject due to the expectation that religious influence would decline and perhaps eventually even disappear with the modernization of nation-states and with the replacement of superstition with reason and science. Religion, however, continues to be a powerful source of influence.1 Unexpected events of the 1970s and 1980s, such as the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Solidarity movement in Poland, and the emergence of Protestant fundamentalism as a political force in the United States all serve as examples of religion, ‘going public’ and confirm religion’s potentially significant effect within the political sphere (Casanova 1994, 3). Religion is influential in the arena of international politics in several ways, such as through the shaping of decisions of policymakers, and by providing a base of legitimacy from which governments can be supported or opposed (Fox 2001, 59). In general, religious institutions “are vital changing structures that project ideas and resources, thus shaping the contexts in which everyday experience is lived. They provide members with elements of identity, material services, and links to a larger universe of moral 1For more on the theory of secularization and the staying power of religion see Berger 1999, Johnston and Sampon 1994, Casanova 1994, and Haynes 1993. 1 significance that undergird perceptions, commitment, and action” (Levine and Mainwaring